From 8851726194340982576 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,109af18a94b8a35c X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e5cae9ffbf1dd57e X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-10-05 18:10:20 PST Xref: sparky comp.std.c++:1321 comp.lang.c++:14565 Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c++ Path: sparky!uunet!panther!mothost!motsrd!news From: shang@corp.mot.com (David (Lujun) Shang) Subject: Re: The concept of templates considered ill designed Message-ID: <1992Oct6.003821.10808@cadsun.corp.mot.com> Sender: news@cadsun.corp.mot.com Reply-To: shang@corp.mot.com Organization: Motorola, Inc., Software Research and Development, Rolling Meadows, IL. 60008 References: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 00:38:21 GMT Lines: 27 In article tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: > In article <1992Oct2.144959.18480@cadsun.corp.mot.com> shang@corp.mot.com (David (Lujun) Shang) writes: > > In article <1992Oct1.140643.9775@cadsun.corp.mot.com> shang@corp.mot.com I > wrote: > Template is not a self-enclosed type-safe language feature, i.e. it cannot be > compiled separately to ensure type-error free. All type errors about the > class parameters are checked when the template is used. > > Yes. However, the reason for this is not intrinsic in the template > concept, but in the way templates were "integrated" with overloading > in C++. > > Thomas. Could you explain your argument in more detail? As far as I can see, the reason for this is the intrinsic in the template concept: class parameters are not constrained. Are there any conflicts between the concept of constrained parameterized class and the concept of C++ overloading? David Shang