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,f7a9613bbc2bd8c9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-11 05:28:23 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.39.3.168!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail
From: Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic default parameters
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 12:28:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology
Message-ID: <slrnadq3j5.1cf.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <MPG.1745f522613b2fb598968d@news.ip-plus.net>
 <slrnadnts9.42d.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <abgtpe$qlt$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1021120101 25429 129.241.83.82 (11 May 2002
 12:28:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 12:28:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23892
Date: 2002-05-11T12:28:21+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 May 2002 12:50:52 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> For the same reason that (in effect) you can have a "default value"
> for functions. You say you want a "<" function and with the "is <>"
> part you are saying, "But if one is already defined and you don't need
> to override it for any reason, then you can save yourself the
> effort."
> 
> In your example, this is fine for a generic where you want only one
> parameter to default (or all parameters to default). What if you have
> 5 parameters and only two of them can sensibly have a default? You
> can't pre-instantiate with just the two parameters. (Although this
> might pose a solution that requires no new syntax..... Hmmm......) In
> the case of Lists, the type of element you're storing should never
> default because it doesn't make sense. However the data type of a
> returned element count might sanely default to Natural unless the user
> has something else in mind. How would you pre-instantiate that with a
> default value when you have no default element type?

I'm not sure I understand. If you have 5 parameters and only two can
have a default then I don't see why giving the generic defaults would
help. To me it sounds like making generics less strongly typed/more
dynamic, but probably I misunderstand you :-)

Preben
--