Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.

[Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote:
>
>> On 28 Lip, 11:28, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> That is, the nature of C++ essentially requires a
>>>>> replication strategy.
>>>
>>>> Why? What part of that "nature" requires it?
>>>
>>> Macro's nature
>> 
>> Wrong. Macros have nothing to do with templates.
>
> They have the nature of source level uncontrolled and untyped substitution
> and reinterpretation.

Macros do.  Templates don't.

[...]

>> A C++ or Ada interpreter can be fully standard-compliant, which makes
>> it a very valid "starter" in this context.
>
> Interpreter does not qualify as a compiler, per definition of both. You
> might say that apple is as edible as orange, but that would not make it
> orange in the context of the greengrocery.

Apples and oranges are both fruits.  Compilers and interpreters
are both implementations.

Either a compiler or an interpreter can be a compliant implementation
of a language.

If you think a compiler is required, consider a hypothetical system
in which the "compiler" simply creates a copy the source code, and
the run-time environment interprets and executes the source code.
Such an implementation wouldn't be easy to create, but I can't think
of any way in which it violates the standard for either C++ or Ada.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"