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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6cdf06eb7605332d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news9-e.free.fr!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Smarter Generics References: <%6uTc.592$de4.1@trndny07> <87wtzxj9l8.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> From: Jean-Marc Bourguet Date: 24 Aug 2004 19:37:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <412b7f81$0$23954$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Organization: Guest of ProXad - France NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Aug 2004 19:48:50 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.254.168.74 X-Trace: 1093369730 news9-e.free.fr 23954 82.254.168.74:33052 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2966 Date: 2004-08-24T19:48:50+02:00 List-Id: Florian Weimer writes: > * Jean-Marc Bourguet: > > > BTW C++ template is a turing-complete compile langage > > able to manipulate types and is the only implementation > > of genericity with such an expressing power. > > Lisp macros offer similar flexibility. I don't think that Lisp macros and Forth immediate words are implementation of genericity, but I agree that they are the two languages I known which have similar power at run-time -- and with a more conveniant syntax. > > But it can be *very* inconveniant to use. > > That's because the compile-time and run-time programming > languages are so different, it's not just the syntax that > is a bit hairy. It's not only the syntax. Semantic of C++ templates is also "a bit hairy". Yours, -- Jean-Marc