home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.c++:11710 comp.std.c++:985
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!mole-end!mat
- From: mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end
- Subject: Re: Language extensions for run-time type identification
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.094428.15393@uunet.uu.net!mole-end>
- Summary: Once more, dear fellows, into the breach
- Organization: :
- References: <1992Jul26.014223.6153@uunet.uu.net!mole-end> <1992Jul27.173614.8320@cadsun.corp.mot.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:44:28 GMT
- Lines: 41
-
- In article <1992Jul27.173614.8320@cadsun.corp.mot.com>, shang@corp.mot.com (David (Lujun) Shang) writes:
- > In article <1992Jul26.014223.6153@uunet.uu.net!mole-end>
- > mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end writes:
-
- > > Derivation is only useful when used properly with virtualization.
- > I disagree. Without virtualization, derivation is still useful in code reuse.
- Usable, but unsafe.
-
- > Virtualizaton only makes derivation more powerful in express polymorphism.
- > > Virtualization is only meaningful in the context of derivation.
- > I disagree. Virtualization actually is a kind of specialization. In
- > addition to virtual functions, we can also have vitual types and virtual
- > constants. ...
-
- This is comp.{lang,std}.c++, not comp.object. Your paragraph does not
- describe C++; it does not describe something that is C++ + <delta> . (In
- comp.object, this might be an interesting journey upon which to embark.)
-
- > > Only derivation can make use of RTTI.
-
- > I disagree. Derivation needs RTTI does not mean that only derivation needs
- > RTTI. Parameterization needs RTTI too (of cause, it is not the C++ template).
-
- RTTI is only needed when an object can have an apparent type and an actual
- type. In C++, that requires derivation. Again, these groups talk about
- C++ and sometimes about stuff within a <delta> radius of C++. I believe
- you are beyond that <delta>.
-
- > > therefore
- > > RTTI is only useful in the presence of virtualization.
- > Since I agree to none of the assumptions, I cannot agree to the conclusion
- > either.
-
- Not even in the context of C++?
-
- Two is not equal to three, not even for large values of two. (Grabel's Law)
- --
- (This man's opinions are his own.)
- From mole-end Mark Terribile
-
- uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
-