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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a9c801f7c771666d,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-17 17:18:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!skynet.be!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Ada 200Y Date: 17 Dec 2003 20:16:51 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0B@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1071710223 57254 80.67.180.195 (18 Dec 2003 01:17:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org To: "amado.alves" Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0B@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3522 Date: 2003-12-17T20:16:51-05:00 "amado.alves" 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