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: 103376,4200259190b16e16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-01 20:26:53 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations.....
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:25:20 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vso54bnr0fs430@corp.supernews.com>
References: <95234e08.0311270742.631b1228@posting.google.com>
 <349csv0udb5k0kuk0q99d7tm7fh5leuefu@4ax.com>
 <95234e08.0311280323.7a5bb870@posting.google.com>
 <n8hesvkm0cad6p3sbvkrahbuiv9ap61gr0@4ax.com>
 <95234e08.0311302345.4f9e235b@posting.google.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3064
Date: 2003-12-01T22:25:20-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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