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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5ab7c96b188b59e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-14 08:09:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The "()" operator revisited. Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:16:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1074096567 13709269 212.79.194.116 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4403 Date: 2004-01-14T17:16:13+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:22:43 -0000, "amado.alves" wrote: >"Templates are for generic programming...." > > Generics is the poor man's dynamic program construction. Generic programming is designing programs valid for many types. This is not necessarily dynamic. It is rather difficult to call templates dynamic, at least in the sense of run-time, late binding. > Ada generics are in the tradition of strong compile-time type checking. > I dream of unifying strong checking with > dynamic construction. Intentional programming perhaps. Maybe that can be > done playing with ASIS. Anyway types as objects/values would be required I think. Yes, this could be interesting. However in my view one of the problems with generics is their power. I like to compare them with gotos. Goto, the Great is also much more powerful than a faint IF-THEN-ELSE... It seems that you wish to create something even more powerful than templates. That's a wrong way, IMO. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de