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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Thread: fac41,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,gid103376,gidfac41,gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-24 19:42:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!0e8a908a!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object Subject: Re: OOP Language for OS Development References: <95db0572.0404142153.431fd058@posting.google.com> <566e2bfb.0404181753.2844342f@posting.google.com> <4088D574.2020503@tele2.fr> <1082738747.300309@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <3AFic.17011$eK3.5247@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 02:42:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.237.200.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1082860927 68.237.200.148 (Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:42:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:42:07 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++:31477 comp.lang.ada:7465 comp.lang.eiffel:749 comp.object:11129 Date: 2004-04-25T02:42:07+00:00 List-Id: Brian_Heilig wrote: > You missed the constrained generic parameter. G -> T means that G is > the generic type and it must conform to T. I don't think C++ templates > can emulate constrained generics yet, but I could be wrong. They sort-of can, because there are ways to do the checks at compile time, but no one really cares. Most C++ folks consider it a mistake to try to limit generic parameters in this way, because it limits the usability of templates for absolutely no reason. If the template happens to work for some class that doesn't conform to T, why should it be prevented from doing so? > C++ will never reach the expressive power of Eiffel, but then again, > you can't make an Eiffel compiler solve factorials, so maybe you win? Yeah, whatever.