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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!fdn.fr!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the
  rational ?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:03:02 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <hcd6v8$pve$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <d31a3f23-975d-4ae7-954a-82055b50f172@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
 <wcciqe26w5q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <hc7nfq$6o7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <10eygvuzeit9g.xwy2wanxoxgf$.dlg@40tude.net> <hca5gv$kvg$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1kf8mo4r9lqxg.1tdhqe6femt9m.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1256857385 26606 69.95.181.76 (29 Oct 2009 23:03:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8864
Date: 2009-10-29T18:03:02-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:1kf8mo4r9lqxg.1tdhqe6femt9m.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> I don't think we should much care about backward compatibility with regard
> to generics.

Well, I doubt that would be very popular with anyone that has existing Ada 
code that they want to use with the latest version of the language.

As Robert Dewar says, incompatibilities have a very high bar. There has to 
be real and compelling value for an incompatibility. I don't see that in 
this case that that it not clear that the revised situation is really better 
than the current one -- it's mostly a sideways move.

> My take is that any generic code is potentially broken. Anyone who uses
> generics beyond very trivial cases should know that, and mentally prepare
> himself to fix his code over and over again.

That's pretty cynical. Most of time, once you get your generic working, you 
hardly every touch it again. Besides, you could make the above statement for 
almost any Ada (or other programming language) code when it is reused.

                                     Randy.