Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Seeking critique(s) of C++ Message-ID: <27EF838D.4115@tct.uucp> Date: 26 Mar 91 17:23:25 GMT References: <633@taumet.com> <18979@milton.u.washington.edu> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 20 According to black@blake.u.washington.edu (Jim Black): >Also I find it's lack of support for type-tags awkward... Anything a type tag can do, a virtual function can do; in fact, most implementation of type tags would simply be compiler-generated virtual functions. A compiler implementation would be of little utility, and its lack is not a serious defect in the language. >... and the fact that all virtual functions must take the same base-class >argument types is awkward too (instead of more specialized versions of the >same arguments, for example). If you want or need to change an argument in an overriding virtual function, then it is obvious that you're not simply providing a new implementation of the _same_ function. So if this restriction appears to be a problem, blame your design. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude. Nothing comes between me and my t.b. Nothing." -- Bill Coderre