Ada 200Y

From: Stephen Leake (stephen_leake_at_acm.org)
Date: 12/18/03 

Date: 17 Dec 2003 20:16:51 -0500
To: "amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>

"amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> Anyway, I'm ok with interfaces per se. I just worry that they might
> push other (for me more interesting) additions off the list (e.g.
> container library) given the scarse revision resources.

Hmm. Your objection to Java-style interfaces is that "you can do that
now in Ada". Well, clearly you can do "container libraries" now in
Ada. The only issue is to pick a standard one.

Picking the Java-style interfaces as a standard way to do one flavor
of MI is easy to agree on. Picking a standard container library API
will be much harder, because there are so many more choices, and so
much less reason to pick one over another.

> /* Tangent but doubly related issue: increasing the power of
> generics viz. towards generic parameters would be also a more
> interesting addition to me. I mean to be able to pass a generic unit
> to a (mandatorily generic) unit. I came across many situations where
> this would be useful. */

I don't follow. How is this different from formal packages? 

-- 
-- Stephe