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,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,27b7b39155b8a0d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-09 06:05:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mark Lundquist" <mlundquist2@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <ypcN7.89512$XJ4.49083085@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>
 <VGcN7.41331$xS6.69936@www.newsranger.com>
 <5ee5b646.0111281941.2620b70a@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Generics not overloadable
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <pcKQ7.19034$wL4.24049@rwcrnsc51>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:05:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.211
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc51 1007906709 204.127.202.211 (Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:05:09 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:05:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17645
Date: 2001-12-09T14:05:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"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