From: Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: default formal parameters in generic declarations
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2008-03-04T08:15:43-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <064f4dce-9bf1-4288-90d8-0d49c8131faf@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1qlkyebn1yxut$.1r1eauouyt3l8$.dlg@40tude.net
On Mar 3, 2:17 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> IMO, it is better (as always) to get rid of generics.
Well, if you don't like generics, then enhancing their utility will
certainly seem like a waste of time.
> Default values of packages are in fact inheritable interfaces.
As to this assertion, I believe this to be false. I won't argue it
here (it's beside my point), but I can recommend how C++ libraries
have come to use "traits" (their jargon) classes as template arguments
for a counterexample.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-04 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-02 17:21 default formal parameters in generic declarations Eric Hughes
2008-03-02 17:42 ` Robert A Duff
2008-03-02 19:40 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-03 9:17 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-03-03 11:15 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-03-03 13:56 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-03-04 16:15 ` Eric Hughes [this message]
2008-03-04 3:43 ` Randy Brukardt
2008-03-04 16:51 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-04 18:43 ` Randy Brukardt
2008-03-05 21:08 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-06 9:32 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-03-06 18:05 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-06 22:41 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-03-07 10:51 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-03-07 20:09 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-03 12:42 ` Stephen Leake
2008-03-04 13:50 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley
2008-03-04 16:56 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-04 16:44 ` Eric Hughes
2008-03-05 13:11 ` Stephen Leake
2008-03-05 21:41 ` Eric Hughes
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox