Hi Arsen, > On 21 Jul 2026, at 15:12, Martin Uecker via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, dem 21.07.2026 um 14:19 +0200 schrieb Arsen Arsenović: >> [for convenience, I'll be using 'ttree' to refer to the hypothetical >> gradually-typed tree system and its central type] >> >> Martin Uecker <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> I do not think so. Alone the compile-time cost of templates makes this >>> a bad trade-off in my opinion, and I find compilation time already to >>> be problematic for GCC. >> >> That's a reason to improve the GCC implementation of templates (of >> course, no easy feat), not to make GCC less maintainable. > > you seem to take it for granted that it templates improve > maintainability, but in my personal experience the opposite > is true. +1 on that, I think that they make debugging experience worse (independent of the compile-time impact). Also, as I see it the basic model for TREEs is one of multiple inheritance - the c++ virtual function model** would seem a better fit (but I am not volunteering to implement if :D ) Iain ** that is perhaps even more true for the hooks infra - which would benefit from default arguments etc if it were implemented there.
