home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage
- From: wikman@research.nokia.com (Johan Wikman)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Problem with template overloading.
- Date: 22 Feb 1996 15:51:08 GMT
- Organization: ?
- Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++)
- Message-ID: <9602220718.AA11584@garlic.spices>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
- X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha5]
- X-Lines: 25
- Content-Length: 909
- Originator: clamage@taumet
-
- In article <4gdc6v$cqv@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.sun.com (Steve Clamage) writes:
-
- Yes. Only in special cases would you not have insurmountable ambiguities.
- Just as type names must be unique in one scope, so must template names.
-
- I'd like to be able to have a class and a template with the same name
- in the same scope.
-
- Usually when I write a template, I derive it from a class that is only
- used as a base class of the template.
-
- class BaseX { ... };
- template<class T> class X : public BaseX { ... };
-
- Consequently I must invent a descriptive name for the base class and
- usually I end up with Base-something or Abstract-something. I'd like
- to be able to write:
-
- class X { ... };
- template<class T> class X : public X { ... };
-
- I don't think there would be ambiguities as an X without a template
- argument is the "class" X and an X with a template argument is
- obviously the "template" X.
-
-
- [ To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader.
- If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
- FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
- Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
- ]
-