Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 30 Lip, 11:09, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> >> What are you trying to say by this?
>
> > That it does not matter what was the suitability of the back-end
> > tools, as there is no obligation (as far as the standard is concerned)
> > to use the existing tools. If you are not obliged to use existing
> > tools, you are not constrained by their (lack of) suitability.
>
> This is obviously wrong. It is like to say that you are not constrained to
> fly to the Moon even if there is no rocket available.

This is obviously wrong. The language standard is not concerned with
what is available, but with what will be developed. Existing practice
can of course provide the valuable guideline as well as feasibility
data, but is but no means formally constraining.
You can standardize flights to the Moon even if there is no rocket.
Rockets will be built according to what the standard says.

> >> You mean shared Ada generic bodies? Yes they require much less late binding
> >> than C++ templates would,
>
> > Can you elaborate on this, please?
>
> Compiled generic bodies, at least in Ada 83, can be parametrized using
> linker expressions.

1. What are linker expressions? Why they cannot be used with C++?
2. How does this affect the amount of late binding and why is there
less of it than with C++ templates?

> >> 1. My example of shared macros was MACRO-11.
>
> > I thought we were talking about C++. Or Ada.
>
> We were about macros.

No, we were talking about going to the Moon.

Your tendency to pull the subject in every possible direction just to
keep the discussion going is nothing new here.
*I* was talking about C++ templates and in that context your claims
were wrong. During the discussion I have referred to the C++ standard,
whereas you have failed to substantiate your claims in any way other
than with unrelated stories.

> (Especially because C++ templates are macros (:-))

Handwaving. We are close to EOF.

> >> 2. The standard does not put any requirements on how the compiler actually
> >> works.
>
> > Bingo. So why do you put claims that are based on the suitability of
> > some tools?
>
> Because any implementation must use these tools.

Implementation must use *some* tools. It might bring its own.

> 1) C++ tells something about templates
> 2) C++ is silent about some other things about templates
> 3) 1 makes something allowed by 2 difficult

And we're still nowhere close to the conclusion on sharing generic
bodies across instantiations.

(we got, however, closer to the Moon in the meantime)

> Where is a contradiction?

1. "the back-end tools down to the linker and loader were unsuitable"
2. "The standard does not put any requirements on how the compiler
actually
works."

The two above are exact citations.

Frankly, I'm both tired and bored of this discussion. Can we stop?

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

YAMI4 - Messaging Solution for Distributed Systems
http://www.inspirel.com/yami4