RE: [pooma-dev] Testing Pooma Code Using Explicit Instantiations?

[Dave Nystrom]

Hi Jeff,

Don't know how you got Nyholm but my last name is Nystrom.  I'm not sure
whether Pooma 2 has a goal of being able to instantiate all the members of a
class.  Perhaps Scott or Jim could comment on that.  I don't think Pooma 1
was designed to support instantiating all the members of a class for all
reasonable template arguments.  I think it would be great if this were the
case but I don't know enough about the design of Pooma 2 to know how feasible 
it is.  Right now, my main interest is in being able to explicitly
instantiate anything that the compiler is able to instantiate via the
prelinker or whatever vendor specific method is used.  I don't think you
would benefit that much from my preinstantiation stuff but you are welcome to 
it.  For the View1 problem for instance, I figured you would rather have one
example with simple template arguments rather than 1800 with complex
arguments that all give the same error.  As I continue to try and finish up
this exercise in explicit instantiation, I'll pass along problems I run
into.  Let me know if you want a copy of my instantiation library stuff.
Right now on Linux with KCC, it produces a 233 MByte library for a debug
build with exceptions turned on and takes a long time to compile:-).  And,
I'm for the most part just instantiating the individual member functions that 
KCC tells me we are using, not whole classes.

Dave

Jeffrey Oldham writes:
 > Dave Nyholm's explicit instantiation program exercised some previously
 > unexercised code, revealing two handfuls of Pooma code errors.  Since
 > explicit instantiation of a class template forces instantiation of all
 > member functions but implicit instantiation does not, should we
 > exercise more Pooma code by explicitly instantiating more of it?  We
 > could ask Dave Nyholm for his testing code so we do not have to spend
 > time enumerating the cases.
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > Jeffrey D. Oldham
 > address@hidden
 >