Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.

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

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:02:25 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> On 29 Lip, 10:03, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:

>> You are free to disagree

> I do.

I know.

>>> Even if we assume such a limitation of discussion, there is still
>>> nothing particular in the C++ standard that would prevent code sharing
>>> as an implementation strategy for templates.
>>
>> It would be technically meaningless, because the back-end tools down to the
>> linker and loader were unsuitable for this.
> 
> First: C++ standard places no constraints on how the implementation is
> organized at the system level.

What are you trying to say by this?

> Second: so, I understand, "the back-end tools down to the linker and
> loader" were more suitable to do it in Ada, right?

You mean shared Ada generic bodies? Yes they require much less late binding
than C++ templates would, if anybody came to a silly idea to compile and
then share them.

>>> Interestingly, macros cannot use this strategy by their definition.
>>
>> They perfectly can.
> 
> No. 2.1 (C++ standard) defines the phases of translation - macro
> expansion is performed before syntactic and semantic analysis of
> tokens.

1. My example of shared macros was MACRO-11.

2. The standard does not put any requirements on how the compiler actually
works. Precompiled headers and IDEs with "go to the declaration point" for
a #define, or just showing the source, not yet expanded, code, even daring
to colorize it, do not take this advise literally.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de