From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,243dc2fb696a49cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Popularity: Comparison of Ada/Charles with C++ STL (and Perl)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:55:39 +0200
Message-ID: <2n0j0jfe6sex.2bcfi09ss44w$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <e749549b.0409211621.6f3d3723@posting.google.com>
 <e749549b.0409230100.6a488b25@posting.google.com> <wvbrd60dusx0.fsf@sun.com>
 <e749549b.0409231111.7d98264d@posting.google.com>
 <cj0qlt$qkh$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <e749549b.0409240828.53001e66@posting.google.com>
 <41547dae$0$91007$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
 <e749549b.0409252313.7cf8ca3a@posting.google.com>
 <uekkpt07s.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <e749549b.0409270631.2bf81ccf@posting.google.com>
 <1g2d9xmnita9f.5ecju0eftkqw$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <e749549b.0409272022.5b558128@posting.google.com>
 <87u4rkhddelw$.1uuoqhfyd2eay$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <cje1hj$jkh$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <6zobtdp3ckqx.plmvz5og15id.dlg@40tude.net>
 <cjhl05$n1j$2@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de BgeXaZSer/5bEey0EWvBjQjjCwj43YKnYUFBO0rHrAjExkfTM=
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.12.1
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4490
Date: 2004-10-01T09:55:39+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:52:21 +0200, Robert Kawulak wrote:

>> What I meant is that you cannot have a vector
>> containing elements of vector<int>, vector<unsigned>, vector<long> etc.
>> vector<A> and vector<B> are unrelated types even if A is a descendant of B
>> or related to B. What do you want from a macro extension? (:-))
> 
>     Whoops! So in my answer for Matthew Heaney's post I've misunderstood you
> again :-/
>     But yes, it *is* possible to have such vector, similarly to my example
> in mentioned answer (of course the code would need a few changes, it could
> be even simplier). But I'm wondering what in the world would you need such a
> vector for? ;-)

It is no matter. The problem is fundamental, if vector<A> and vector<B> as
types have nothing in common, then it is difficult to write a program which
can work with both. It is all about generic programming. That is not
necessarily programming using generics or templates, that is programming
with *sets* of types. Array types is an example of such set, "vector<>" is
another.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de