Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations.....

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Petter Fryklund" <petter.fryklund@atero.se> wrote in message
news:95234e08.0311302345.4f9e235b@posting.google.com...
> I still think that it would be nice to have a "box" syntax for
> parameters that aren't relevant.

See AI-317, approved by the ARG at the last meeting.

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> said:

>If you are going to make an AI on generics and send it to ARG, then add
there

>1. defaults for generic parameters;

This was proposed in AI-299. It didn't find sufficient support, and it was
shelved. (Generally, people didn't think it was important enough.)

>2. a way to resolve conflicts in generic parameter names;
>3. matching the actuals of generic subroutine with omitted default
>parameters [It might be backward incompatible, as Christoph Grein pointed];

Dunno about these.

> 4. generic formal dispatching subroutines;
> 5. generic dispatching subroutines;

Tucker has been lobbying for changes in this area for years. The main
problem is that the changes proposed so far are very messy; it's very hard
to understand the implications. I believe someone has the action item to
work on them.
>. . .
>666. automatic instantiations;

I think you have the appropriate number here. :-)

             Randy Brukardt