Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.

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

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:01:43 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> 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.
> 
> Macros do.  Templates don't.

They do. The only limit put on the substitution is that the
reinterpretation does not fail. There are no traces of any semantics in the
declaration of the template parameters.

Generics suffer this too, but to a lesser extent.

>>> 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.
> 
> Apples and oranges are both fruits.

So what? You don't pay for apples when buy oranges.

> Compilers and interpreters are both implementations.

It is about the implementation to take. The question was about shared
implementation of generics. Certainly, expanded implementations do
implement generics, or at least we hope so...
 
-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de