abstract function templates

[Simen kjaeraas]

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does it really make sense for a class to have methods that accept any
> type of argument? It's one thing to have a class specialized on some
> type(s), e.g.:
>
> class Foo(T1, T2)
> {
>     void bar(T1 var, T2 etc) { }
> }
>
> But having a class method which can accept any type, that seems odd to
> me. I don't know since I've never used such a thing before, but maybe
> it has some good use cases? (I'd love to know about those btw!).

Well, operator overloading comes to mind. Certainly for types that
would allow mathematical operations with any generic numeric type.


> You can introduce constraints, but I thought having parameterized
> classes would solve most of the use-case scenarios.


-- 
Simen