And again, just to get my keywords right, I meant, "runtime polymorphism"
or "single dispatch polymorphism".

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026, 8:59 am Muneem, <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The current form of polymorphism is not only slow, but only verbose, a new
> value type would help the most, though a just in time compiler would be a
> cherry on the top for the current template capabilities of c++. this is
> because it would provide some notion of extended templates or runtime
> templates, and would make most cases of unsafe type erasure techniques
> obsolete.
>
>
>
>
> Regards, muneem
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2026, 8:56 am Muneem, <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> I am really really sorry for the ambiguous response, I meant, overrided* ;
>> This further supports my notion of a just in time compiler for such cases
>> of overriding.
>> I am really really sorry for using the word overloading instead of
>> overriding, and my example did take enum_t as template argument and a enum
>> of that arg as function arguments.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2026, 8:41 am Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals, <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 9:23 PM Muneem via Std-Proposals
>>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Responding to Mr. Jason McKesson's near and dear feedback dated
>>> [31-3-2026] (I had some issues with my digest settings, so I'm replying
>>> manually):
>>> >
>>> > First, I would like to clarify that the reason I responded late was
>>> because I couldn't find his mail until someone was kind enough to remind me
>>> that your (McKesson's) response did, in fact, exist.
>>> >
>>> > I did think of that; in fact, that's the main reason why I couldn't
>>> sleep, to be honest with you. Let me break it down on why I didn't use the
>>> suggested technique:
>>> >
>>> > It can't technically work the way you would expect, since functions
>>> can be overloaded based on enums, and if it can't be overloaded, then it
>>> can't have different return types. Why does this matter? Well, the STL
>>> containers don't share a common container base, so making this work would
>>> require you to add a base class with virtual functions like pop_back(),
>>> at(), etc. Then you would have to implement them for each derived class and
>>> then return the appropriate derived class.
>>>
>>> Maybe your example was missing something, but taking it as it was
>>> presented, the enum in question was a template parameter. And a class
>>> template parameter at that (since it was clearly *not* a function
>>> parameter, nor was there a template header). The "overloading" happens
>>> via template instantiation. Since template parameters are constant
>>> expressions, you can have them return different types based on the
>>> result of constant expression evaluation. As long as you use `if
>>> constexpr` rather than `switch`, that is.
>>> --
>>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>>
>>