From: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   On 5 Apr 2007 11:48:32 -0700, Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki wrote:   
      
   >> Should it mean that you withdraw your complain about portability of   
   >> algorithms implemented in terms of double? That would be silly.   
   >   
   > Algorithm not, but ranges of doubles were different on different   
   > platforms.   
      
   So, is algorithm portable or not?   
      
   >> I fail to see here any relation to the issue whether a templated code is   
   >> certifiable. What is your point?   
   >   
   > The point is that code contains only that parts which are used.   
      
   How does this make it more certifiable? Certification is about written code   
   and the process of designing the code. If you write code which you don't   
   use later, I doubt it much that you will be able to certify that.   
      
   >> No, this is technically impossible. There cannot be a self-consistent type   
   >> system with single ancestor for all types.   
   >   
   > Hmm ... in Java that is.   
      
   But Java's system is inconsistent in may respects. For example, it has   
   objects accessible by references. In such system either the reference is   
   not an object or else the target of the reference is not.   
      
   >> This not even generic's fault. Contracted generics don't   
   >> suffer this particular problem. It is very specific to C++ templates alone.   
   >   
   > No. This is a matter of static typisation and control. Go using   
   > pythons you will know other way.   
      
   I didn't say anything in favor of dynamic typing. I said that templates   
   have no contracts, whether statically or dynamically checked, just none. So   
   it is quite perplexing how you manage to argue for untyped templates from   
   the stand point of type-safety...   
      
   --   
   Regards,   
   Dmitry A. Kazakov   
   http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)