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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e93f73587e2bc1c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.k-dsl.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!open-news-network.org!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <4c4e2d69$0$2378$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <i2ne8j$1i7g$1@news.ett.com.ua>  <4c4f5c28$0$2375$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <7da1e21f-bec7-4607-923c-0fd6cbcfc753@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
 <1vjqnwxhvr91j.3e8ryvkk8ezv$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <b20b43c6-72d4-4a9d-999b-d7def9f1623f@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <1e77bsd66fduw.dbrgbk4g2ce7$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <22db743d-ef73-40fe-886d-9730a2763eaa@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <5cljc8pc0gv0$.115t79rxo29vs$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <9ad8b242-fe4c-4871-8c0e-1f1ddec936c7@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:40:33 +0200
Message-ID: <b4sa7fdb381x$.l3hnqcyuokej$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jul 2010 16:40:32 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: eab299c6.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=T2`jklmYQU7L2C_`koXfC5A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;UA74FhN[Dm0[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4\`mfM[68DC3<B0;R9@R;R3
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12664
Date: 2010-07-29T16:40:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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