Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

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

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:15:15 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
>
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> 
>>> ... or there should be no generics.
>>>
>>> The kludge here rather is generics and inlining, both basically are macro
>>> expansions.
>> 
>> Semantics defined by macro-expansion is confusing, and should be
>> avoided.  I'd prefer to have generic types rather than generic
>> packages, and don't use macro-expansion semantics.
>
> Still macro expansion it is (if meant as textual substitution).

No, as I said above, "don't use macro-expansion semantics"!
One can have "Sequence of Integer" and "Sequence of Whatever"
without any macro-expansion/textual-substitution semantics.
And with full type safety (can't pluck a Mumble out of a
"Sequence of Integer").

> It is no matter how you reinterpret the expanded text: as a package, as a
> type, as a statement, identifier, declaration etc. Generic types would be
> no better than generic packages.

There should be no "expanded text" in my view.  Maybe that's what
you mean when you say "no generics", but then you should say
"no Ada-style generics" (or C++-style templates).

- Bob