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-Thread: 103376,6cdf06eb7605332d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news3-e.free.fr!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Smarter Generics References: <%6uTc.592$de4.1@trndny07> From: Jean-Marc Bourguet Message-ID: Date: 16 Aug 2004 15:52:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Guest of ProXad - France NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2004 15:52:13 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.189.36.28 X-Trace: 1092664333 news3-e.free.fr 26999 62.189.36.28:15737 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2753 Date: 2004-08-16T15:52:13+02:00 List-Id: "Frank J. Lhota" writes: > AFAIK neither Ada generics nor C++ templates have this level of > intelligence. Look at partial specialisation, which what I'd use to do such choice. (with one level of indirection). Ask in c.l.c++.m if you need more info. BTW C++ template is a turing-complete compile langage able to manipulate types and is the only implementation of genericity with such an expressing power. But it can be *very* inconveniant to use. A+ -- Jean-Marc