Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation

["REH" <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> REH wrote:
>
> >>>class R1 : ranged_type<int, 0, 100> {};
> >>>class R2 : ranged_type<int, 0, 100> {};
> >>>class R3 : ranged_type<int, 0, 101> {};
> >>>
> >>>to create new types.
> >>
> >>Except that those new types would be problematic to use with operations
> >>that are already defined for ranged_type (especially those which return
> >>ranged_type), because there is no implicit conversion to the derived class.
> >
> > That's not true.  operators are usually defined using references.
>
> As written above: "especially those which return ranged_type".
>
> // some operation on the range type (can be a template)
> ranged_type<int, 0, 100> foo() {/* ... */}
>
> // some "new type"
> class R : ranged_type<int, 0, 100> {};
>
> R r = foo(); // bang!
>

Yes, which is why I said that one of the problems was that it was
missing necessary constructors.

REH