Tim M wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:58:14 +1300, Michel Fortin
<[email protected]> wrote:
If you introduce a way to limit templates to what generics can do in
Java and C#, you can have virtual template functions. Java and C#
generics can do only do a subset of what templates can do, but this
ensure there's only one compiled code instanciation. So perhaps
non-final non-static member template functions could be constrained to
generic-like operations and thus could become virtual.
I remembrer myself proposing this a few months ago, but it didn't
caught on.
I remember you blogging about a way of compiling base classes with new
methods and not needing to recompile the sub classes, I will read up on
those genrics in C# and java later. If that doesn't work out, what if
the compiler could check for all sub class functions within the same
module and allowing a sort of limited virtual template functions, so no
work through external libraries. I would prefer limited virtual over no
virtual.
People would constantly complain and file bug reports about the
limitations. It's all or nothing. Nothing is the superior choice here.
