Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message news:094101c54aaa$f55dfb40$6401a8c0@pdimov2...
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message news:090601c54aa7$0c9d5ac0$6401a8c0@pdimov2...
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
They [copying and cloning] are conceptually different, just like copying and moving are different and just like value-based programming is different from OO-programming.
Why are copying and cloning conceptually different and why is value-based programming different from OO programming?
is this a joke?
No.
I think you have to explain why they are not different then.
The burden of proof lies usually with the person making the statement. ;-) The reference semantics vs value semantics axis is orthogonal to OO, in my opinion. The fact that in C++ you can't (efficiently) have polymorphism with value semantics doesn't mean that copying a value and copying a polymorphic object are conceptually or fundamentally different. A cloning pointer is a very good approximation of a polymorphic value. I don't see why you consider it conceptually different from a value.