From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Sep 26 22:33:09 2017
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 4F85C3587F5; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:33:09 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (mailhost.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.106])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B97357250
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:33:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57])
	by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id v8QKX1X1025164
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128 bits) verified NO)
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:33:02 -0700
Subject: Re: AW: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5955)  generic programming in F2020
From: Van Snyder <Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <f24a5c5d08da44888be2a743fcfd71eb@lrz.de>
References: <20170926174021.A8F283587DC@www.open-std.org>
	 <20170926184342.68786358676@www.open-std.org>
	 <f24a5c5d08da44888be2a743fcfd71eb@lrz.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Organization: Yes
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:33:01 -0700
Message-ID: <1506457981.32527.118.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-37.el6) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 19:46 +0000, Bader, Reinhold wrote:
> We probably also should avoid making the mistakes that happened with C
> ++ templates in their original form and required significant
> additional work to resolve (if resolved at all). 
> I do not know details, but repeatedly heard about this from C
> ++-knowledgeable colleagues.

For precisely that reason, my proposal was more closely based on Ada
generic packages, which work just fine, and worked just fine in Ada 83.

Maybe we should study them even more closely than I did in 2004, to get
useful ideas and avoid pitfalls.