On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:31:47PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[...]
> My understanding is that the *only* thing preventing vitrual template
> functions is the possibility of pre-compiled closed-source static
> libs. Which is why I've long been in favor of allowing vitrual
> template functions *as long as* there's no closed-source static libs
> preventing it. Why should OSS have to pay costs that only apply to
> closed source?
I thought the reason was that every instance of the template will need a
vtable entry, and the compiler may not be able to know beforehand which
instances will actually exist? You *could* in theory have the compiler
scan the entire program for all instances, I suppose, but that will
prevent incremental compilation and loading of dynamic libs, OSS or not.
Plus it may slow down the compiler significantly.
[...]
> Another great one, which is very similar to one I've enjoyed
> repeating:
>
> What are a redneck's last words? "Hey y'all, watch this!"
[...]
And another one in response:
Famous last words: I *think* this will work...
T
--
It won't be covered in the book. The source code has to be useful for
something, after all. -- Larry Wall
