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: 103376,5c1125c290d9dd14
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ANN: Ada 2005 Math Extensions, 20100810 release
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:50:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2d3tmwavk.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <m2lj8eywqo.fsf@pushface.org> <m2bp98n82h.fsf@pushface.org>
	<xjlthhyt5ugw.w2yg0t26s4ak.dlg@40tude.net>
	<m239ujfwde.fsf@pushface.org>
	<15e1x67lls1pe$.sqnhbm59hwdz$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:50:07 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="KCXegvZb5vh43D+f3BR6Ew";
	logging-data="16263"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YmrkOG1DB1a+TBotS3Y/Ffj49IZGFTuw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+J2e4whPgycMm42l2T3R5403OxU=
	sha1:LMx39eT5vXu/oyyvIMV5fhUvtVc=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13239
Date: 2010-08-13T20:50:07+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> Yes, especially because of two "Extensions". I had immense problems with
> names. Look at this:
>
>    http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/fuzzy_packages.gif

Gosh!

>From a UML background (OK, OK, ...) I'd have the arrows pointing the
other way ('depends on' rather than 'is used in' or 'supports').

> Somewhere down deep the hierarchy the user starts to become
> incomprehensive error messages upon instantiation within the
> generic(!) bodies. It is practically impossible to understand what is
> wrong, is it a compiler bug (in GNAT case) or something else. For the
> user it would be a nightmare to fight this.

I think I've come across a GNAT bug here .. I dont think it's allowed
for a generic to compile but the instantiation not!

> Another rule of thumb (I don't know if this is going to be fixed in
> Ada 2012), is that a child should always rename formal generic
> arguments in its specifications. Under certain circumstances, usually
> in children, they might become unavailable. I mean this:
>
> generic
>    with package P is new Generic_P (<>);
> package Generic_S is
>    package P_Of renames P; -- You will need this!
>
> Sometimes you need to "rename" formal types as well:
>
> generic
>    type Foo is ...
> package Generic_S is
>    subtype Foo_Of is Foo; -- What a mess!

I've more often come across the latter.

Could consider

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