Re: generic parameter Copy for primitifs types.

[Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

>> All this would go away if packages were first class citizens of Ada,
>> i.e. objects. This is one thing I'm trying to do with Ocpotus
>> (softdevelcoop.org/ocpotus).
>
> Or
>
> - if true package specialization were available;
>
> - if generic types were ADT (you could have generic formal types of 
> your
> own);
>
> - if assignment were a primitive operation (discriminants/constraints
> problem is solvable, IMO);
>
> - etc.
>

Yes.

> Packages as objects is a fundamental question I believe. A potential 
> danger
> is that when packages become objects any difference between "type" and
> "package" might disappear.

I don't see it as a danger, but as something I want.

> The result would be a type system close to C++.

I don't see this. C++ has the same schizophrenia between OO and 
generics that Ada has.

> But we know that C++ has immense problems in the elaboration model, or
> better to say with absence of any model. Is it curable? I can't tell. 
> If
> Robert Dewar were here, he would probably shed more light on the 
> mechanics.

I think it's curable. However it may require relaxing the notion of 
static typing. Namely generalizing the notion of type checking w.r.t. 
bind times. End another aporia, that of static vs. dynamic, or compile 
time vs. run time. Again, Ocpotus. But we drift away from Ada. Better 
discuss this on the Ocpotus list, or privately.