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,XPRIO autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,27b7b39155b8a0d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-28 13:20:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttln1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Generics not overloadable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:10:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.248.56.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttln1.wa.home.com 1006981854 24.248.56.237 (Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:10:54 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:10:54 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17133 Date: 2001-11-28T21:10:54+00:00 List-Id: I posted this earlier today, but I never saw the post show up, so maybe it went into the bit-bucket for some reason. Here it is again just in case... ---- Generic units cannot be overloaded. That is a bother. Apparently this is to allow for a name denoting a generic_declaration, occurring within the generic_formal_part of the same generic_declaration, to denote the generic unit itself [AARM 8.6(18b)]. Questions: 1) Do I understand this correctly (that this is the reason generics are not overloadable)? 2) Of what use is a name denoting a generic unit within its own formal part? You certainly can't instantiate the generic there. What else can you bloody well do with a generic unit (in general) besides instantiate it? 3) In any case, why could overloading rules not just as well apply to generic unit names both outside the generic and within the formal parts? 4) Is there anything else that could be done to fix this (make generics overloadable)? And now some questions for the language lawyers (these are "help me get to know my RM better" questions): 5) I could not actually find the rule covering resolution of a generic unit name denoting a generic_declaration within the unit's own formal part. There are a couple of rules that refer to such a rule, but where's the actual rule? I was looking for a Name Resolution Rule somewhere, like in 12.1... 6) The aforementioned paragraph in the AARM says that the rule in question "implies" that generics are not overloadable. It certainly stands to reason that generics cannot be overloaded in light of such a rule, but I took "implies" in the technical sense: that is, that this rule in combination with some other rules entails the result. What would those other rules be? Thanks, Mark Lundquist http://members.home.com/mlundquist2/consulting