Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!male!jethro!exodus!rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM!chased
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: solution to implementing parameterized classes
Message-ID: <14976@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 91 01:46:12 GMT
References: <1991Jun9.013306.4462@cs.sfu.ca> <1991Jun9.204515.18040@ms.uky.edu> <25349@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Jun11.183133.11458@auto-trol.com>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 16

mattel@auto-trol.com (Matt Telles) writes:

>nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes:
>> As does the notion that "(void *)" should be a normal part of programming.

>  FINALLY!  Someone else that dislikes the idea of a pointer to nothing ...
>Can't we define a type called generic????  (You know, like a generic pointer).

I'm afraid you missed the point.  If the only way to write reusable
code turns out to be to use "generic" (or "void *") everywhere, what's
the point of pretending to have a type checker?  People griped about
this for Cedar Mesa and Modula-2+, but at least there they had
run-time checking of type conversions from generic-to-specific.

David Chase
Sun