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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Task interface and entries with aliased parameters
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:24:35 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <n0rhv3$334$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: 
 <98fcf225-fdec-401c-80b3-321e2ac65f6b@googlegroups.com><n08g8e$ngr$1@dont-email.me><1e09jksdqcfyv.8f80k06gl5ye$.dlg@40tude.net><n0r1om$rct$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <87611qvkpr.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1446071076 3172 24.196.82.226 (28 Oct 2015 22:24:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:24:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28104
Date: 2015-10-28T17:24:35-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:87611qvkpr.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>> Sharing interfaces *sounds* nice, but it's impossible in practice because 
>> in
>> almost all circumstances you need parameters of different types for
>> different "instances" ("instances" not in the Ada sense). Think container
>> interfaces, for example - the element type is almost always different.
>
> Java has generics for that now.

Sure, and once you have generics, you have no need for interfaces. (At least 
if you assume, as I do, that static checking is better than dynamic 
checking.)

                                  Randy.