Re: Generics not overloadable

["Mark Lundquist" <mlundquist2@attbi.com>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0111281941.2620b70a@posting.google.com...
> Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:<VGcN7.41331$xS6.69936@www.newsranger.com>...
>
> > It annoyed me too when I discovered it
>
> I find it hard to believe that it would be easy to come
> up with an example where it would help the reader to
> name two visible generic units with the same name.

Why should it make a difference whether they are generic?  The principle is
the same.  As for examples, just about anything will do, but here's one
(self-explanatory, I trust)...

    generic
        with procedure Action (On : Item);
    procedure Apply (Over : Collection);

    generic
        with procedure Action (On : Item; Continue : out Boolean);
    procedure Apply (Over : Collection);

    generic
        with procedure Action (On : Item);
    procedure Apply (Start, Finish : in Iterator);

    generic
        with procedure Action (On : Item; Continue : out Boolean);
    procedure Apply (Start, Finish : in Iterator);

The user should not have to remember a different fiddly specialized name for
each variant.   It's much more natural, and easier on the user,  if each can
be called simply "Apply".

>
> Indeed, far too often overloading in Ada is misused to
> save the bother of thinking of different names.

Maybe so, but not by me :-).  I take naming too seriously, if anything :-).
Incidentally, I realized the reason for the language rule that makes it
impossible to overload generics.  The wonderful benefit :-) is that I can
write

    generic
        type Foo is private;
        with procedure Something (Foo : X.Foo);
    package X is
        .
        .

Talk about "saving the bother of thinking of different names"!

I'd gladly trade away this liberty in the generic formal part for the
ability to overload generics.

-- mark