Re: ANN: Ada 2005 Math Extensions, 20100810 release

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Le Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:50:07 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
> a écrit:
>> I've more often come across the latter.
>>
>> Could consider
>>
>> generic
>>    type Formal_Foo is ...
>> package Generic_S is
>>    subtype Foo is Formal_Foo;
>>
> The trouble with this one, is that it move the case to the client
> side... I would not like to generic instantiations “obfuscated” with
> all of those  Formal_Foo (I always use named parameter
> associations... especially with  generic instantiations).
>
> The Dmitry way, which is also the one I use, end to be less intrusive,
> as the client of the generic package is less likely to have to spell
> this  somewhere (except if it/he/she has to use a formal parameter of
> a given  instantiated package to instantiate another).

Well, I couldn't see how Dmitry's "Foo_Of" would make sense as it was
being read.

   procedure P (Q : Generic_S.Foo_Of);   -- huh?

I suppose one could say

   generic
      type Foo is ...
   package Generic_S is
      subtype Actual_Foo is Foo;

(since we're adopting the "spelt-out prefix" style, Generic_, rather
than the "abbreviated suffix" style, _G !)

though I see that the last time I used it was the other way round ..

   generic
      type Actual_Foo is ...
   package Generic_S is
      subtype Foo is Actual_Foo;