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!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Full view of a private partial view cannot be a subtype
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:16:30 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <p1c6kf$1or$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <c6ba70e3-bfd0-42ca-b742-dc472965eea0@googlegroups.com>
 <p04cdg$db$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <5b32a99e-04e5-4adb-8b42-88e485570641@googlegroups.com>
 <p06ujp$1kf$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <83982113-349e-4443-b457-e63d749ad42a@googlegroups.com>
 <p16332$1rfb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p19gim$k2u$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <c29c753e-18e9-475b-9a28-a19aa697ea2f@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:16:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="1819"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49546
Date: 2017-12-19T17:16:30-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jere" <jhb.chat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c29c753e-18e9-475b-9a28-a19aa697ea2f@googlegroups.com...
...
> Using
> either extension, derivations, or composition all seemed very heavy handed
> for just wanting to mimic the same specification as another generic.

Fair enough, but it seems like a bizarre thing to do. If I start getting a 
generic design that is too complex to use easily, I'm likely to toss the 
entire thing in the junk and do something else. (And exposing access types 
is almost always a bad idea, because you force the client to do memory 
management, eliminating the possibilities that they have of using containers 
or stack allocation to avoid it altogether.)

Also note that you'll end up with visibility problems if both packages end 
up used in a program (which seems likely), as the operations in each will 
conflict.

                  Randy.