Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 29 Lip, 16:40, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> >> 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?

That it does not matter what was the suitability of the back-end
tools, as there is no obligation (as far as the standard is concerned)
to use the existing tools. If you are not obliged to use existing
tools, you are not constrained by their (lack of) suitability.

> > 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,

Can you elaborate on this, please?

> >>> 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.

I thought we were talking about C++. Or Ada.

> 2. The standard does not put any requirements on how the compiler actually
> works.

Bingo. So why do you put claims that are based on the suitability of
some tools? The above point basically contradicts most of what you
have said.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

YAMI4 - Messaging Solution for Distributed Systems
http://www.inspirel.com/yami4