From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,91276ec2ea911d3f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Generic procedures and their parameters
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <edm273$fee$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
 <w0vh1ugsvkj1$.2fnx5mt0tplm$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <dbGdnW_HQKomeZ3YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@megapath.net>
 <g3c05xzf7uad$.wucggq0h6wuy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3aqdnWxXdPQDhZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@megapath.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:14:43 +0200
Message-ID: <fn4grjn2wscc.1r97wu1ez1l05$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Sep 2006 09:14:26 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f315f13a.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=O8d5AZN;=VSmG86`U=_nC_ic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQgUcjd<3m<;R>1S7gCU5=3U[6LHn;2LCV^[<mhadbfdU[ZXU=PW4\ho[2L]8`fEd:oT
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6531
Date: 2006-09-09T09:14:26+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 20:29:20 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:g3c05xzf7uad$.wucggq0h6wuy$.dlg@40tude.net...
> ...
>> Yes, that's when somebody wanted to have different orders. But that in my
>> view is a different case, in which "<" should be better passed to Sort as a
>> plain parameter, rather than generic or primitive subprogram.
> 
> We considered that, too, and decided not to do it because it because it
> doesn't work well in Ada. "<" is usually Intrinsic, and Intrinsic things
> cannot be passed as access-to-subprogram parameters. So you'd have to
> explicitly build a wrapper function, with all of the possibilities for error
> that that exposes. Generic instantiations don't have that limitation (as
> they are are considered more heavyweight than a simple 'Access).

Well, I never could understand why shouldn't we make procedural types and
forget all that C-ish mess with access-to-procedure.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de