"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote in message news:c5082n$nbf$1@sea.gmane.org...
[...] As well as any other class/struct/union. Does it make all c++ entities 'functional'?
In a trivial sense at the metaprogramming level, yes. But really, if all you had were classes and enums and the builtins, you would have a pretty poor functional language, because you would have no flow control. That's why templates make things interesting.
[...] This is not nesserary good thing. I would prefer to be able to use imperetive style in metaprogramming.
Really? You would want mutable types? So suppose I define a class type, and then you use it in one place, and I redefine it later, and you use it again? Does the fact that the ODR is broken bother you?
[...] In this sence definition "int const" is also 'functional'. It take type int and 'produces' different type int const.
Yup. You could think of "const" as a functional "meta-operator". In that sense, you could say that C99 "supports metaprogramming". ;) But again, without flow control, it's a very poor man's functional language indeed.
[...]
Toy is something kids play with, Tool is something adults use to do a real job. [...]
I think this is a pretty unprofessional way to make your point.
If you think so. I was just used analogies you introduced.
I didn't refer to anyone's work as a toy. Rather, I was making the claim that a paradigm was *not* a toy. That's neutral. Calling FC++ a toy, and then saying that "kids play with toys" implies that anyone who uses FC++ is "a kid". That's insulting. Or was that a backhanded compliment that I didn't understand? Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 2/9/2004