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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bdebc54a485c13a4
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.235.4 with SMTP id ui4mr11945669pbc.3.1332525376544;
        Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 kz5ni25087pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.netfront.net!not-for-mail
From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: My first compiler bug: work around or redesign?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:56:15 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net
Message-ID: <jkidfv$7rv$1@adenine.netfront.net>
References: <slrnjmp96d.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.219.211.80
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: adenine.netfront.net 1332525376 8063 70.219.211.80 (23 Mar 2012
 17:56:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@netfront.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:56:16 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0
In-Reply-To: <slrnjmp96d.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-03-23T10:56:15-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 03/23/2012 09:29 AM, Natasha Kerensikova wrote:
>
> However, at implementation level, it turns out that they are very
> similar: only the prefix recognition change, and further processing is
> perfectly identical. So instead of cut-and-pasting code, I would write a
> generic that handles all the common aspects, using a formal function for
> the prefix part.
>
> Is there something wrong with that approach?
> Are there some caveat that I missed?
> Are there advantages in avoiding the generics in that situation, for
> example using a non-generic common function that takes an
> access-to-subprogram extra parameter?

There's nothing wrong with that approach. I've used it successfully many times.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You couldn't catch clap in a brothel, silly English K...niggets."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
19

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---