== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article > On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:33:21 -0500, %u <e...@ee.com> wrote: > > == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article > >> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:28:49 -0500, %u <e...@ee.com> wrote: > >> > Should have been this: > >> > > >> > void func(type t){ > >> > new t(); > >> > } > >> void func(T)(){ > >> new T(); > >> } > >> When you are passing types into functions, use templates. > >> -Steve > > > > The reason I asked for a non-templated solution is because they don't > > have a > > common interface signature. > I don't know what you mean. Templated solution does not require a common > interface. This works with any type: > void func(T)(){ > T t; > } > Maybe you can post an example of what you are trying to solve? > -Steve
Yeah, sorry, I meant it the other way around: I need a common interface. class C1: I .. class C9: I I'd like to pass any C(a) type to any C(b) object such that C(b) can spawn a C(a). What would be the common signature of these two functions? And how would the object save the type?