From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>
To: "amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
Cc: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Subject: Ada 200Y
Date: 17 Dec 2003 20:16:51 -0500
Date: 2003-12-17T20:16:51-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.133.1071710223.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0B@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
"amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:
> Anyway, I'm ok with interfaces per se. I just worry that they might
> push other (for me more interesting) additions off the list (e.g.
> container library) given the scarse revision resources.
Hmm. Your objection to Java-style interfaces is that "you can do that
now in Ada". Well, clearly you can do "container libraries" now in
Ada. The only issue is to pick a standard one.
Picking the Java-style interfaces as a standard way to do one flavor
of MI is easy to agree on. Picking a standard container library API
will be much harder, because there are so many more choices, and so
much less reason to pick one over another.
> /* Tangent but doubly related issue: increasing the power of
> generics viz. towards generic parameters would be also a more
> interesting addition to me. I mean to be able to pass a generic unit
> to a (mandatorily generic) unit. I came across many situations where
> this would be useful. */
I don't follow. How is this different from formal packages?
--
-- Stephe
next parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-18 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0B@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
2003-12-18 1:16 ` Stephen Leake [this message]
2003-12-19 15:46 Ada 200Y amado.alves
[not found] <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0E@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
2003-12-19 18:35 ` Stephen Leake
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox