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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8385fc6e4bf20336
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generics with concrete and class-wide types
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:10:13 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fsu4r8$b53$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <279b6f4f-36cf-446f-8b54-fd72b957b22f@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <f0879dc0-7498-48f7-8d44-9856316d35ce@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1207080616 11427 69.95.181.76 (1 Apr 2008 20:10:16
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 20:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20736
Date: 2008-04-01T15:10:13-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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. ;-)