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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY
	autolearn=no 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: no, it can't be,
 there's no "with procedure instance_of_generic_procedure is new
 generic_procedure;" ? Impossible !
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:59:22 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <parg8q$kga$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <115d2e72-2b30-4ec0-b42f-52e9df2905d4@googlegroups.com>
 <f6b52822-3cdb-4dec-b5ea-0a3e49f845e2@googlegroups.com>
 <aeb87b8c-a777-4417-ba9a-af9beeda281f@googlegroups.com>
 <e0a89dde-ed5f-4814-b7f9-73ecd0c6d466@googlegroups.com>
 <c5ca4f5c-65db-4e6c-bfc1-15dc903a380b@googlegroups.com>
 <b4157ddb-9783-4b64-a165-1f7af26aee9f@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:59:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="21002"; 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:51489
Date: 2018-04-13T18:59:22-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

That was changed in Ada 2005. - Randy

"Mehdi Saada" <00120260a@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b4157ddb-9783-4b64-a165-1f7af26aee9f@googlegroups.com...
I shall add that removing that rule of "all or none" is necessary ( possible 
or not :-) ) because,
considering GP1 which needs GP2:
generic
   type T1 is private
   with package P2 is new GP2(T1...)
package GP1... end GP1;

some parameters of GP2 use or concern T1 (are logically related to T1), but 
some others, might they have defaults or not, might be used for parts of GP2 
totally unrelated to T1. This fact is already expressed in contracts (not 
sure the term is right, I mean "everything between "generic" and "package 
generic_package_name is ..."), so I don't think a priori it would entail 
more checks for formal parameters coherence.

Hope I didn't spout rubbishes.