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 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-19 10:36:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 200Y Date: 19 Dec 2003 13:35:03 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0E@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 1071858919 87422 80.67.180.195 (19 Dec 2003 18:35:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org To: "amado.alves" Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B0E@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:3579 Date: 2003-12-19T13:35:03-05:00 "amado.alves" writes: (please use a better quoting style, this was hard to sort out) > stephen.leake@gsfc.nasa.gov writes: > > "Picking the Java-style interfaces as a standard way to do one flavor > > of MI is easy to agree on." > Fake MI. Hmm. No need to be nasty! I said "one flavor". I think we all agree there are many ways to implement something that looks like multile inheritance. If you don't have a need for Java-style interfaces, fine; don't use them! That doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't get the chance to use them. > > > /* 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? > You can only pass instances as actuals for them. Instead I want to > write for example > generic > generic package Generic_Formal; -- Ada 2015 > package P is > type T is ...; > > package Instance is new Generic_Formal (T); > end; > generic > ... > package G is > ... > end; > package Instance_Of_P is new P (G); Ah. I see. You can probably get a similar result for most cases now with child generic packages; it would be interesting to see if that is true in general. -- -- Stephe