From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,df1a7f1c3c3bc77e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An Ada Advice Inquiry Date: 8 May 2007 01:32:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1178613127.834322.100580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> References: <1178448459.256329.28590@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178480316.415370.194260@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <463ed042$1@news.post.ch> <1178527820.949652.143060@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1g1r9ddu19ka7$.1kq3tc2btm98o.dlg@40tude.net> <1178542830.662912.295270@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <2825529.4NRNKvsDf2@linux1.krischik.com> <1178573171.037577.54370@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <46401a78$1@news.post.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1178613128 5012 127.0.0.1 (8 May 2007 08:32:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:32:08 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <46401a78$1@news.post.ch> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070228 Red Hat/1.5.0.10-0.1.slc3 Firefox/1.5.0.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241; posting-account=Ch8E9Q0AAAA7lJxCsphg7hBNIsMsP4AE Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15635 Date: 2007-05-08T01:32:07-07:00 List-Id: On 8 Maj, 08:36, Martin Krischik wrote: > >> And still AFAIK there is still only > >> one C++ compiler to support "export". > > > We've been through this already. > > Short version: nobody uses "export" so nobody cares whether it's > > supported or not. It looks that this subject is occupying the C++ > > enemies much more than the actual users of the language. Interesting, > > isn't it? > > But isn't that a catch 22 - no one supports it because not one uses it > because no one supports it. And there is no pressure to change because > users don't know what they are missing. Not really. There were high expectations at the beginning, because people believed that "export" will allow them to hide (I mean - literally, in terms of IP protection, not in terms of code structure) implementation details of their template code. Without "export" the library vendors have to ship all template code in open text, which drives some of the managers crazy. After a couple of years, though, it became clear that "export" does not guarantee this level of protection, so today the motivation for having this feature is much smaller. That's why it's not true that people don't know what they are missing. People learned to use templates without "export" and those who are wary of code structure decouple the specification from implementation with the crude use #include. It works just fine, thank you. It's not perfect, but solving it doesn't provide any earth shaking benefits. Note that in Ada (GNAT) the generic body needs to be available in source form everywhere where it is instantiated. Most importantly, implementing "export" is expensive (why do you think only one vendor took the challenge) and there are bigger fishes to fry - it's much better if vendors spend their cycles implementing some other, really wanted functionality. > I am not in favour of export because I am a C++ enemy. You are not in favour or you are not an enemy? ;-) Show me a short example of code that shows the benefits. -- Maciej Sobczak http://www.msobczak.com/