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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.78.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations.
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:01:43 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Message-ID: <lnk4ofxtnc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:03:45 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="9nFTuw1iclElqUG5+//YDQ";
	logging-data="8373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rLK9/vYTYrvpYv+iaimjD"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MMewyNw2kHzNdKk+XfbDYIBAR3Q=
	sha1:pEx8NGm6S46HqGjp4XTbaGQxGC8=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12647
Date: 2010-07-28T13:01:43-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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"