From: "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Specialization of generics
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:16:42 +0300
Date: 2001-06-04T19:16:42+03:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9fgcmj$9jb$1@news.huji.ac.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: ofNS6.3787$v4.179175@www.newsranger.com
> Right. For me the easiest is to just have two generics (one for each
> "specilization").
> ---
> T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
Yap, that's what I'd do.
What I really miss is being able to overload generic units. For example,
imagine a package that can work on any non-limited type, but has a more
efficient version ("specialization") is the type is ordered (i.e, has an "<"
operator). The client code "simply" instantiates the unit, getting the
appropriate version automagically.
This is great when the internal structure of a library shouldn't really
concern clients, and thus "we manage complexity."
--
Ehud Lamm mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ehudlamm <== Me!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-04 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-04 0:17 Specialization of generics John Pitney
2001-06-04 1:04 ` tmoran
2001-06-04 10:23 ` Ehud Lamm
2001-06-04 14:51 ` Ted Dennison
2001-06-04 16:16 ` Ehud Lamm [this message]
2001-06-04 17:28 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-04 19:21 ` Ehud Lamm
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox