Re: Ada generics

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> The language should be defined in terms of code points.
 > The encoding of is irrelevant.

And non-type template parameters are defined in terms of their
values. The expression used to formulate them is irrelevant.
An arbitrary-precision rational number package would be enough
to make floating-point template parameters be portably defined.
It's just not worth the work.

> matching by structure

To say that 1 + 1 and 2 are equivalent isn't matching by structure
as far as I'm concerned, but we're not going to agree on that one.

> We are talking not about floats, but about the principle of matching by
> content. There is no any chance to hold on it:
>    template <p> void foo<HALT(p)> ...

What's the problem with that? It's a compile-time operation on
constants. The compiler will just trundle along and it will either
halt, run out of resources, or continue running forever. All
language standards allow compilers to impose resource constraints
on the programs being compiled.