C++ list of unspecialized template type objects?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








2















I've looked for questions on this subject, and although there are similar ones, none really address my question. So, here I go.



Suppose I have a template type F, and I declare a series of specializations as member variables of another object:



F<A> a;
F<B> b;
.
.
.


Later, I'd like to iterate over these and perform an operation that is defined on any F instance.



So my impulse is to create a std::list< F> but this does not work.



Is there a way to create a list of objects of type F, that is, without specifying the template parameter?



My hunch is no, not in C++, but hoping I am wrong.










share|improve this question
























  • What you mean is an instantiation, not a specialization.

    – SergeyA
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:16












  • What I see is what inheritance does. You want to create a list with the parent class type, and have several children types into the list. I am not familiar how to do it with templates but inheritances is he first thing that came to my mind with your description

    – fernando.reyes
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:18

















2















I've looked for questions on this subject, and although there are similar ones, none really address my question. So, here I go.



Suppose I have a template type F, and I declare a series of specializations as member variables of another object:



F<A> a;
F<B> b;
.
.
.


Later, I'd like to iterate over these and perform an operation that is defined on any F instance.



So my impulse is to create a std::list< F> but this does not work.



Is there a way to create a list of objects of type F, that is, without specifying the template parameter?



My hunch is no, not in C++, but hoping I am wrong.










share|improve this question
























  • What you mean is an instantiation, not a specialization.

    – SergeyA
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:16












  • What I see is what inheritance does. You want to create a list with the parent class type, and have several children types into the list. I am not familiar how to do it with templates but inheritances is he first thing that came to my mind with your description

    – fernando.reyes
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:18













2












2








2








I've looked for questions on this subject, and although there are similar ones, none really address my question. So, here I go.



Suppose I have a template type F, and I declare a series of specializations as member variables of another object:



F<A> a;
F<B> b;
.
.
.


Later, I'd like to iterate over these and perform an operation that is defined on any F instance.



So my impulse is to create a std::list< F> but this does not work.



Is there a way to create a list of objects of type F, that is, without specifying the template parameter?



My hunch is no, not in C++, but hoping I am wrong.










share|improve this question
















I've looked for questions on this subject, and although there are similar ones, none really address my question. So, here I go.



Suppose I have a template type F, and I declare a series of specializations as member variables of another object:



F<A> a;
F<B> b;
.
.
.


Later, I'd like to iterate over these and perform an operation that is defined on any F instance.



So my impulse is to create a std::list< F> but this does not work.



Is there a way to create a list of objects of type F, that is, without specifying the template parameter?



My hunch is no, not in C++, but hoping I am wrong.







c++ templates






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 13 '18 at 20:16







nzc

















asked Nov 13 '18 at 20:15









nzcnzc

401517




401517












  • What you mean is an instantiation, not a specialization.

    – SergeyA
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:16












  • What I see is what inheritance does. You want to create a list with the parent class type, and have several children types into the list. I am not familiar how to do it with templates but inheritances is he first thing that came to my mind with your description

    – fernando.reyes
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:18

















  • What you mean is an instantiation, not a specialization.

    – SergeyA
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:16












  • What I see is what inheritance does. You want to create a list with the parent class type, and have several children types into the list. I am not familiar how to do it with templates but inheritances is he first thing that came to my mind with your description

    – fernando.reyes
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:18
















What you mean is an instantiation, not a specialization.

– SergeyA
Nov 13 '18 at 20:16






What you mean is an instantiation, not a specialization.

– SergeyA
Nov 13 '18 at 20:16














What I see is what inheritance does. You want to create a list with the parent class type, and have several children types into the list. I am not familiar how to do it with templates but inheritances is he first thing that came to my mind with your description

– fernando.reyes
Nov 13 '18 at 20:18





What I see is what inheritance does. You want to create a list with the parent class type, and have several children types into the list. I am not familiar how to do it with templates but inheritances is he first thing that came to my mind with your description

– fernando.reyes
Nov 13 '18 at 20:18












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














Unless all F<X> derive from some common base-class independent of X, this is only be possible using type erasure or heterogeneous containers.



If they all inherit from Foo, then of course you can iterate over them as as Foo&/Foo*, but I guess you knew that.



If they have different types the standard-containers cannot hold them, because they are homogeneous - all elements have the same type. There is probably some library with heterogeneous containers, but in the STL, you can only emulate this with std::variant or std::any.



The last way I could imagine this works out - I don't recommend this - is by creating the enclosing class as a derived class of the F<X>s (variadic template) and encoding the invocations into the hierarchy, s.t. every Fsfoo` is called



Since this is somewhat more involved here is a sample:



#include <iostream>

template <class X>
class Foo
X mem;
public:
explicit Foo(X arg) : mem(arg)
void foo()
std::cout << mem;

;

template <class X, class ...Xs> class Holder;

template <class X>
class Holder<X>
X member;
public:
Holder(X arg) : member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))
void call()
member.foo();

;

template <class X, class ...Ys>
class Holder : public Holder<Ys...>
X member;
public:
Holder(X arg, Ys ...args) : Holder<Ys...>(std::forward<decltype(args)>(args)...), member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))

void call()
member.foo();
Holder<Ys...>::call();

;

int main()
// omitting the template-args requires c++17 deduction guides
Holder holder(Foo(4), Foo(" Hello "), Foo(7L), Foo(" World "));
holder.call();
std::cout << std::endl;



You maybe able to guess, that this is typically not what you want, because it is super-complex. I actually omitted some things like perfectly forwarding the arguments to keep it somewhat minimal, s.t. one can hopefully understand the concept.






share|improve this answer
































    2














    Unfortunately, the answer is NO. In C++ you can't have a container of heterogeneous unrelated objects, and different instantiations of the same template are unrelated.



    The only way to make it work is to use some form of the type erasure. The most idiomatic is to use inheritance and virtual functions, and put pointers to base object into your list.






    share|improve this answer






























      2














      As far as C++ is concerned, two different template instantiations of a template class or struct are completely separate types and have no relation to each other whatsoever. For example, a std::vector<int> and a std::vector<char> are separate types; neither derives from the other or from any common base. The fact that both types arose from instantiations of the same template does not create a semantic relationship between the types. In that sense (and that sense only) you might think of templates like preprocessor macros which are expanded before compilation to declare new and unrelated types.



      But, you can create such a relationship yourself using inheritance, just as you would with any non-template types:



      #include <iostream>

      struct foo_base
      virtual void print() = 0;
      ;

      template <typename T>
      struct foo : foo_base
      foo(T data) : data(data)
      virtual void print() override
      std::cout << data << std::endl;

      private: T data;
      ;

      void example()
      foo<int> f(42);
      f.print();



      Here, a foo<int> and a foo<char> are separate types (as distinct instantiations of the foo<> template), but all foo<> instantiations derive from foo_base. (Unless, of course, you provide an explicit specialization of foo<> which does not derive from foo_base...)






      share|improve this answer

























      • You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

        – SergeyA
        Nov 13 '18 at 20:37











      • @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

        – TypeIA
        Nov 13 '18 at 20:40











      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      );
      );
      , "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53288822%2fc-list-of-unspecialized-template-type-objects%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2














      Unless all F<X> derive from some common base-class independent of X, this is only be possible using type erasure or heterogeneous containers.



      If they all inherit from Foo, then of course you can iterate over them as as Foo&/Foo*, but I guess you knew that.



      If they have different types the standard-containers cannot hold them, because they are homogeneous - all elements have the same type. There is probably some library with heterogeneous containers, but in the STL, you can only emulate this with std::variant or std::any.



      The last way I could imagine this works out - I don't recommend this - is by creating the enclosing class as a derived class of the F<X>s (variadic template) and encoding the invocations into the hierarchy, s.t. every Fsfoo` is called



      Since this is somewhat more involved here is a sample:



      #include <iostream>

      template <class X>
      class Foo
      X mem;
      public:
      explicit Foo(X arg) : mem(arg)
      void foo()
      std::cout << mem;

      ;

      template <class X, class ...Xs> class Holder;

      template <class X>
      class Holder<X>
      X member;
      public:
      Holder(X arg) : member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))
      void call()
      member.foo();

      ;

      template <class X, class ...Ys>
      class Holder : public Holder<Ys...>
      X member;
      public:
      Holder(X arg, Ys ...args) : Holder<Ys...>(std::forward<decltype(args)>(args)...), member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))

      void call()
      member.foo();
      Holder<Ys...>::call();

      ;

      int main()
      // omitting the template-args requires c++17 deduction guides
      Holder holder(Foo(4), Foo(" Hello "), Foo(7L), Foo(" World "));
      holder.call();
      std::cout << std::endl;



      You maybe able to guess, that this is typically not what you want, because it is super-complex. I actually omitted some things like perfectly forwarding the arguments to keep it somewhat minimal, s.t. one can hopefully understand the concept.






      share|improve this answer





























        2














        Unless all F<X> derive from some common base-class independent of X, this is only be possible using type erasure or heterogeneous containers.



        If they all inherit from Foo, then of course you can iterate over them as as Foo&/Foo*, but I guess you knew that.



        If they have different types the standard-containers cannot hold them, because they are homogeneous - all elements have the same type. There is probably some library with heterogeneous containers, but in the STL, you can only emulate this with std::variant or std::any.



        The last way I could imagine this works out - I don't recommend this - is by creating the enclosing class as a derived class of the F<X>s (variadic template) and encoding the invocations into the hierarchy, s.t. every Fsfoo` is called



        Since this is somewhat more involved here is a sample:



        #include <iostream>

        template <class X>
        class Foo
        X mem;
        public:
        explicit Foo(X arg) : mem(arg)
        void foo()
        std::cout << mem;

        ;

        template <class X, class ...Xs> class Holder;

        template <class X>
        class Holder<X>
        X member;
        public:
        Holder(X arg) : member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))
        void call()
        member.foo();

        ;

        template <class X, class ...Ys>
        class Holder : public Holder<Ys...>
        X member;
        public:
        Holder(X arg, Ys ...args) : Holder<Ys...>(std::forward<decltype(args)>(args)...), member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))

        void call()
        member.foo();
        Holder<Ys...>::call();

        ;

        int main()
        // omitting the template-args requires c++17 deduction guides
        Holder holder(Foo(4), Foo(" Hello "), Foo(7L), Foo(" World "));
        holder.call();
        std::cout << std::endl;



        You maybe able to guess, that this is typically not what you want, because it is super-complex. I actually omitted some things like perfectly forwarding the arguments to keep it somewhat minimal, s.t. one can hopefully understand the concept.






        share|improve this answer



























          2












          2








          2







          Unless all F<X> derive from some common base-class independent of X, this is only be possible using type erasure or heterogeneous containers.



          If they all inherit from Foo, then of course you can iterate over them as as Foo&/Foo*, but I guess you knew that.



          If they have different types the standard-containers cannot hold them, because they are homogeneous - all elements have the same type. There is probably some library with heterogeneous containers, but in the STL, you can only emulate this with std::variant or std::any.



          The last way I could imagine this works out - I don't recommend this - is by creating the enclosing class as a derived class of the F<X>s (variadic template) and encoding the invocations into the hierarchy, s.t. every Fsfoo` is called



          Since this is somewhat more involved here is a sample:



          #include <iostream>

          template <class X>
          class Foo
          X mem;
          public:
          explicit Foo(X arg) : mem(arg)
          void foo()
          std::cout << mem;

          ;

          template <class X, class ...Xs> class Holder;

          template <class X>
          class Holder<X>
          X member;
          public:
          Holder(X arg) : member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))
          void call()
          member.foo();

          ;

          template <class X, class ...Ys>
          class Holder : public Holder<Ys...>
          X member;
          public:
          Holder(X arg, Ys ...args) : Holder<Ys...>(std::forward<decltype(args)>(args)...), member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))

          void call()
          member.foo();
          Holder<Ys...>::call();

          ;

          int main()
          // omitting the template-args requires c++17 deduction guides
          Holder holder(Foo(4), Foo(" Hello "), Foo(7L), Foo(" World "));
          holder.call();
          std::cout << std::endl;



          You maybe able to guess, that this is typically not what you want, because it is super-complex. I actually omitted some things like perfectly forwarding the arguments to keep it somewhat minimal, s.t. one can hopefully understand the concept.






          share|improve this answer















          Unless all F<X> derive from some common base-class independent of X, this is only be possible using type erasure or heterogeneous containers.



          If they all inherit from Foo, then of course you can iterate over them as as Foo&/Foo*, but I guess you knew that.



          If they have different types the standard-containers cannot hold them, because they are homogeneous - all elements have the same type. There is probably some library with heterogeneous containers, but in the STL, you can only emulate this with std::variant or std::any.



          The last way I could imagine this works out - I don't recommend this - is by creating the enclosing class as a derived class of the F<X>s (variadic template) and encoding the invocations into the hierarchy, s.t. every Fsfoo` is called



          Since this is somewhat more involved here is a sample:



          #include <iostream>

          template <class X>
          class Foo
          X mem;
          public:
          explicit Foo(X arg) : mem(arg)
          void foo()
          std::cout << mem;

          ;

          template <class X, class ...Xs> class Holder;

          template <class X>
          class Holder<X>
          X member;
          public:
          Holder(X arg) : member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))
          void call()
          member.foo();

          ;

          template <class X, class ...Ys>
          class Holder : public Holder<Ys...>
          X member;
          public:
          Holder(X arg, Ys ...args) : Holder<Ys...>(std::forward<decltype(args)>(args)...), member(std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg))

          void call()
          member.foo();
          Holder<Ys...>::call();

          ;

          int main()
          // omitting the template-args requires c++17 deduction guides
          Holder holder(Foo(4), Foo(" Hello "), Foo(7L), Foo(" World "));
          holder.call();
          std::cout << std::endl;



          You maybe able to guess, that this is typically not what you want, because it is super-complex. I actually omitted some things like perfectly forwarding the arguments to keep it somewhat minimal, s.t. one can hopefully understand the concept.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 13 '18 at 23:19

























          answered Nov 13 '18 at 21:16









          midormidor

          3,81611343




          3,81611343























              2














              Unfortunately, the answer is NO. In C++ you can't have a container of heterogeneous unrelated objects, and different instantiations of the same template are unrelated.



              The only way to make it work is to use some form of the type erasure. The most idiomatic is to use inheritance and virtual functions, and put pointers to base object into your list.






              share|improve this answer



























                2














                Unfortunately, the answer is NO. In C++ you can't have a container of heterogeneous unrelated objects, and different instantiations of the same template are unrelated.



                The only way to make it work is to use some form of the type erasure. The most idiomatic is to use inheritance and virtual functions, and put pointers to base object into your list.






                share|improve this answer

























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  Unfortunately, the answer is NO. In C++ you can't have a container of heterogeneous unrelated objects, and different instantiations of the same template are unrelated.



                  The only way to make it work is to use some form of the type erasure. The most idiomatic is to use inheritance and virtual functions, and put pointers to base object into your list.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Unfortunately, the answer is NO. In C++ you can't have a container of heterogeneous unrelated objects, and different instantiations of the same template are unrelated.



                  The only way to make it work is to use some form of the type erasure. The most idiomatic is to use inheritance and virtual functions, and put pointers to base object into your list.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 13 '18 at 20:19









                  SergeyASergeyA

                  44.7k53990




                  44.7k53990





















                      2














                      As far as C++ is concerned, two different template instantiations of a template class or struct are completely separate types and have no relation to each other whatsoever. For example, a std::vector<int> and a std::vector<char> are separate types; neither derives from the other or from any common base. The fact that both types arose from instantiations of the same template does not create a semantic relationship between the types. In that sense (and that sense only) you might think of templates like preprocessor macros which are expanded before compilation to declare new and unrelated types.



                      But, you can create such a relationship yourself using inheritance, just as you would with any non-template types:



                      #include <iostream>

                      struct foo_base
                      virtual void print() = 0;
                      ;

                      template <typename T>
                      struct foo : foo_base
                      foo(T data) : data(data)
                      virtual void print() override
                      std::cout << data << std::endl;

                      private: T data;
                      ;

                      void example()
                      foo<int> f(42);
                      f.print();



                      Here, a foo<int> and a foo<char> are separate types (as distinct instantiations of the foo<> template), but all foo<> instantiations derive from foo_base. (Unless, of course, you provide an explicit specialization of foo<> which does not derive from foo_base...)






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

                        – SergeyA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:37











                      • @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

                        – TypeIA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:40















                      2














                      As far as C++ is concerned, two different template instantiations of a template class or struct are completely separate types and have no relation to each other whatsoever. For example, a std::vector<int> and a std::vector<char> are separate types; neither derives from the other or from any common base. The fact that both types arose from instantiations of the same template does not create a semantic relationship between the types. In that sense (and that sense only) you might think of templates like preprocessor macros which are expanded before compilation to declare new and unrelated types.



                      But, you can create such a relationship yourself using inheritance, just as you would with any non-template types:



                      #include <iostream>

                      struct foo_base
                      virtual void print() = 0;
                      ;

                      template <typename T>
                      struct foo : foo_base
                      foo(T data) : data(data)
                      virtual void print() override
                      std::cout << data << std::endl;

                      private: T data;
                      ;

                      void example()
                      foo<int> f(42);
                      f.print();



                      Here, a foo<int> and a foo<char> are separate types (as distinct instantiations of the foo<> template), but all foo<> instantiations derive from foo_base. (Unless, of course, you provide an explicit specialization of foo<> which does not derive from foo_base...)






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

                        – SergeyA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:37











                      • @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

                        – TypeIA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:40













                      2












                      2








                      2







                      As far as C++ is concerned, two different template instantiations of a template class or struct are completely separate types and have no relation to each other whatsoever. For example, a std::vector<int> and a std::vector<char> are separate types; neither derives from the other or from any common base. The fact that both types arose from instantiations of the same template does not create a semantic relationship between the types. In that sense (and that sense only) you might think of templates like preprocessor macros which are expanded before compilation to declare new and unrelated types.



                      But, you can create such a relationship yourself using inheritance, just as you would with any non-template types:



                      #include <iostream>

                      struct foo_base
                      virtual void print() = 0;
                      ;

                      template <typename T>
                      struct foo : foo_base
                      foo(T data) : data(data)
                      virtual void print() override
                      std::cout << data << std::endl;

                      private: T data;
                      ;

                      void example()
                      foo<int> f(42);
                      f.print();



                      Here, a foo<int> and a foo<char> are separate types (as distinct instantiations of the foo<> template), but all foo<> instantiations derive from foo_base. (Unless, of course, you provide an explicit specialization of foo<> which does not derive from foo_base...)






                      share|improve this answer















                      As far as C++ is concerned, two different template instantiations of a template class or struct are completely separate types and have no relation to each other whatsoever. For example, a std::vector<int> and a std::vector<char> are separate types; neither derives from the other or from any common base. The fact that both types arose from instantiations of the same template does not create a semantic relationship between the types. In that sense (and that sense only) you might think of templates like preprocessor macros which are expanded before compilation to declare new and unrelated types.



                      But, you can create such a relationship yourself using inheritance, just as you would with any non-template types:



                      #include <iostream>

                      struct foo_base
                      virtual void print() = 0;
                      ;

                      template <typename T>
                      struct foo : foo_base
                      foo(T data) : data(data)
                      virtual void print() override
                      std::cout << data << std::endl;

                      private: T data;
                      ;

                      void example()
                      foo<int> f(42);
                      f.print();



                      Here, a foo<int> and a foo<char> are separate types (as distinct instantiations of the foo<> template), but all foo<> instantiations derive from foo_base. (Unless, of course, you provide an explicit specialization of foo<> which does not derive from foo_base...)







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Nov 13 '18 at 20:30

























                      answered Nov 13 '18 at 20:24









                      TypeIATypeIA

                      13.9k2543




                      13.9k2543












                      • You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

                        – SergeyA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:37











                      • @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

                        – TypeIA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:40

















                      • You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

                        – SergeyA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:37











                      • @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

                        – TypeIA
                        Nov 13 '18 at 20:40
















                      You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

                      – SergeyA
                      Nov 13 '18 at 20:37





                      You do not need to provide virtual for virtual overrides, this is just syntax noise.

                      – SergeyA
                      Nov 13 '18 at 20:37













                      @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

                      – TypeIA
                      Nov 13 '18 at 20:40





                      @SergeyA That's true, but perhaps a bit pedantic, and certainly not related to OP's question.

                      – TypeIA
                      Nov 13 '18 at 20:40

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53288822%2fc-list-of-unspecialized-template-type-objects%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

                      Crossroads (UK TV series)

                      ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế