D's templates now seem weak to me...

[Stewart Gordon]

Ben Phillips wrote:
> In article <dtcr4g$254q$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>> Ben Phillips wrote:
>>> According to the docs, "Templates cannot be used to add non-static members or
>>> functions to classes. For example: [...]". Why? This is just plain stupid in my
>>> opinion
>> Because at the time of compiling the module, one cannot be sure what 
>> types it will be called on, and so it wouldn't be able to generate the vtbl.
>>
>> However, it ought to be possible to do it on private and final member 
>> functions, since such things will never be overridden and so don't need 
>> to be included in the vtbl.
>>
> That makes sense. However, couldn't this be fixed by just not compiling the
> template functions when creating a *.lib? The end user has to import the
> appropriate files anyways so it should be possible for the compiler to delay
> compilation of the functions until an executable is made (kind of like C++
> though C++ uses preprocessor #includes)

What if different modules of an application call the template function 
with different template arguments?  The vtbl needs to be known when 
compiling each module.  And so each module would have a different vtbl 
for the same class, which would totally screw up the program.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.