"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:b4p2ksjzkv4m.6ghazx68f8js.dlg@40tude.net...
> [rant on]
>
> Why Ada generics do not have boxes for individual parameters?

Ada 200Y does allow mixing of <> and specified parameters in generic formal
packages. Also, the rules for what's visible were clarified. Probably GNAT's
implementation of these changes is what is causing your troubles.

I tried to get more kinds of default parameters for generics, but that
effort failed (mainly because some people seem to hate defaults of any
kind -- there didn't seem to be any technical objections).

> Why Ada
> generics do not have specializations?
>
> Anyway, generics and templates are inherently a mess, but that is another
> story. (:-))

Perhaps because we haven't seen any crying need. I, for one would prefer to
reduce the need for generics than to pile on more features. You have said in
the past that generics are unnecessary with good OOP, and I tend to agree. I
think pretty much everything should be a tagged type derived from
Controlled, and that fact, combined with decent access-to-subprograms and
interfaces, eliminate much of the need for generics. (Of course, if you
insist on supporting archaic untagged types, then you do need generics.)

> [rant off]

Same here.

Randy.