From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,NICE_REPLY_A,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parameterised 'Image Attributes
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:38:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <uc1olt$2anmi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ubn5un$5tvt$1@dont-email.me> <ubn9u8$6fup$1@dont-email.me>
 <ubq15l$oa8i$1@dont-email.me> <ubqn0t$o3lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <ubsgp8$19ib8$1@dont-email.me> <ubsmak$1a024$1@dont-email.me>
 <uc0sfl$23foj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:38:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="68fb8d4c60f45eceaa1fe84bc52eb712";
	logging-data="2449106"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19aikdfYGMmBYr2DwV138sLbv/IjuefSs0="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:x5Gpx5bHJUZyVLuT7+anW55GMM4=
In-Reply-To: <uc0sfl$23foj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65551
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2023-08-22 01:37, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:ubsmak$1a024$1@dont-email.me...
> ...
>> Of course it must be generic, which kills all fun.
> 
> As noted in my other message, resurrecting the Ada 95 idea allowing
> class-wide types for elementary types would eliminate (or at least greatly
> reduce) this problem.

Yes, but that would be a huge change.

> I think that would be a more productive way to address
> this problem than hacking around with 'Image some more. (We've already
> proven that it is not a good way to define anything user-defined, thus the
> rather complex way to define such 'Image attributes.)

One does not exclude another. If you allowed classes then there would be 
no reason not to have attributes official primitive operations. E.g. an 
"imaginable" interface would provide "'Image" and the standard Integer 
would inherit to "imaginable"...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de