From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: A proposal for formal packages matching
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:34:57 +0100
Date: 2008-12-16T09:34:57+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jgvbcey8cn1z.xg4f5z8pn2c1$.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: gi72ks$jgk$1@munin.nbi.dk
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Indeed, the declaration of "AB" is dubious. The intent of the language
> designers (as I best I understand it) was for these instances to also be
> children.
>
> with Generic_A.Generic_B;
> package A.B is new A.Generic_B;
>
> in which case there wouldn't be any temptation to reference the parent
> implicitly.
The language designers didn't articulate their intent well. If instances of
children were per "intent" children of instances, then I would expect some
equivalent of extension aggregates for instantiations of paths of generic
packages etc...
Anyway, there are two parents of a child package instance, to add
confusion, I guess. I didn't mean the "actual parent" of a child instance.
There could be none. I meant the actual of the "formal parent." (Generics
are cool, aren't they? (:-))
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-16 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-15 10:21 A proposal for formal packages matching Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-12-15 12:13 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-12-15 13:29 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-12-15 15:43 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-12-15 19:21 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-12-16 2:09 ` Randy Brukardt
2008-12-16 8:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox