Re: User-defined type attributes

[Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>]

On Mar 14, 3:01 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> Right, because to make it rigorously you have to make "task type" a proper
> class. That means, tasks must be tagged, there must be Root_Task type and a
> class of.

No, you don't.  If your only conception of generic programming is to
virtualize everything, then this statement would be true to you.  But
this conclusion rests upon an invalid premise about the nature of
generic programming.

> I see where you are going. It is to consider (some) attributes
> automatically instantiated generic functions. Am I right?

Basically correct.  Yet I also mean generic functions in their full
sense and not in the sense where they are instantiated merely with
virtual function calls.

Eric