Re: default formal parameters in generic declarations

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Eric Hughes" <eric.eh9@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d84f0434-bace-4b99-b10d-f4a56807eacd@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 3, 8:43 pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> > It surely was considered for the most recent language update, because I
> > proposed it. See AI-299.
>
> Thank you.  That's the exact sort of reference I was hoping for.
>
> > The net effect is that IMHO there is no *good* reason that Ada doesn't
have
> > such defaults (now); they just got swept up in a tide of negativity.
>
> The "good", apparently, was a removal from attention and a freeing up
> of mental space.  That's a short-term benefit to a committee,
> unfortunately, and not a long-term benefit to a community.

Well, keep in mind that if a language update has too many "nice-to-have"
features, the implementation costs go up and that reduces (or in the worst
case, eliminates) the number of implementations available. Also, more
features mean more definitional and educational complexity. So there are
costs beyond just plain ease of use to consider. Looking back at the old
minutes, we had a straw poll where about half of the people present thought
that this feature was not important enough. That's a pretty significant
number (I don't recall many other features that had that level of apathy).

Another data point is that this AI is not one that I think of when asked
what I wished we had been able to do with the Amendment. So even I don't
view it as that critical. As such, it makes sense that it got left out in
order to keep the size of the changes manageable.

                                   Randy.