Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!taumet!steve
From: steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: solution to implementing parameterized classes
Message-ID: <762@taumet.com>
Date: 12 Jun 91 15:57:58 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>
Organization: Taumetric Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 23

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

>In article <25349@well.sf.ca.us> nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes:
>>     As does the notion that "(void *)" should be a normal part of programming.
>>					John Nagle
>   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).

Absolutely!!  In fact, we can do this without any changes to the language:

	typedef void * generic_ptr;

Now we can write things like

	generic_ptr memchr(const generic_ptr ptr, int val, size_t len);

which makes it crystal-clear that we are working with generic pointers,
not with "pointers to nothing".  This is certainly much, much better than
having to learn the complicated rule that "void*" means "generic pointer".
-- 

Steve Clamage, TauMetric Corp, steve@taumet.com