Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> On 28 Lip, 11:28, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> 
>>>> That is, the nature of C++ essentially requires a
>>>> replication strategy.
>>
>>> Why? What part of that "nature" requires it?
>>
>> Macro's nature
> 
> Wrong. Macros have nothing to do with templates.

They have the nature of source level uncontrolled and untyped substitution
and reinterpretation.

>>> But, for the sake of exercise, think about a C++ *interpreter*.
>>
>> Interpreter is an obvious non-starter in this context. Generics are
>> considered compilable.
> 
> Paragraph, please.
> 
>> (There is no crisp line between compiled and
>> interpreted)
> 
> That's the point.

Nope. The difference still exists, even if not qualitative. It can be
measured in terms of performance, usability, complexity, security etc.

> A C++ or Ada interpreter can be fully standard-compliant, which makes
> it a very valid "starter" in this context.

Interpreter does not qualify as a compiler, per definition of both. You
might say that apple is as edible as orange, but that would not make it
orange in the context of the greengrocery.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de