Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: solution to implementing parameterized classes
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.011033.14305@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 91 01:10:33 GMT
References: <1991Jun9.013306.4462@cs.sfu.ca> <1991Jun9.204515.18040@ms.uky.edu> <25349@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16

In article <25349@well.sf.ca.us> nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes:
>
>     The notion that the solution to providing generics in C++ involves a
>template preprocessor feeding a C++ preprocessor feeding a C preprocessor
>feeding a C compiler leads me to suspect that something is very wrong.

I suspect that the people at TI who wrote the thing would agree with you.
Think of it as a temporary solution that suffices until compiler vendors
support templates.  This is equivalent to what the Unix programmer does
when he/she prototypes a program by writing a shell script, then later
codes it in C or C++ for better efficiency.

--
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck