Re: Generics with concrete and class-wide types

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

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:f0879dc0-7498-48f7-8d44-9856316d35ce@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
...
> What's missing here is a way to specify a generic formal subprogram
> that must be a primitive operation of some tagged type (possibly a
> generic formal tagged type),

No, it's not missing. That's what abstract formal subprograms are for. See
specifically 12.6(8.4-8.5/2).

I'm not sure that helps in this case, but feel free to try. ;-).

                       Randy.

P.S. These were totally my idea, originally in the context of
Generic_Dispatching_Constructor (which I also dreamt up after a conversation
with Steve Baird and Tucker Taft on the factory problem). I off-handedly
suggested that the "magic" embodied in the original version of that generic
could be given language status, and I was stunned to find that everyone
thought that was a good idea. (Especially after the death of defaults for
generic formal parameters.) And voila! Abstract formal subprograms. I'm glad
that you like them. ;-)