Hi Eljay, I'll go for implicit template instantiation. If I use vague linkage it again throws errors. Can you suggest the same for the above piece of code if am not boring you. -ruks John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote: > > Hi ruks, > > If you are going to rely on explicit template instantiation, you have to > be > meticulous about instantiating all the templates that are referenced. And > you have to have a deep knowledge about the template mechanism (which* is > a > an obtuse, convoluted, and confusing code generation language built into > C++ > -- but x1000 better than the C preprocessor). > > Otherwise, in my opinion, it is best to rely on implicit template > instantiation and vague linkage instead. > > I am not a C++ template guru. I know enough about them to use them > effectively, and I can (albeit poorly, in retrospect) write them -- but > there are so many agonizing subtleties and mindboggling nuances and > t's-to-cross and i's-to-dot that I leave the fine art of template crafting > to the smart++ folks at Boost <http://www.boost.org/>. > > Sincerely, > --Eljay > > * in my not-so-humble opinion. I¹m comparing / contrasting C++ template > facilities with D¹s code generation mechanism, in particular. It is as-if > C++ template mechanism was not designed as a code generation language, and > only was realized that it is one long after the fact, and way too late to > redesign it. > > "What 99 percent of programmers need to know is not how to build > components, > but how to use them." > ~ Alexander Stepanov > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Migration-from-GCC3.4.3-to-GCC4.1.2-tp23295500p23405174.html Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
