> I'm curious: what's wrong with myFunc(List<BaseClass * >) ?? Well, nothing I suppose, except BaseClass cannot then be a template, and you cannot have derived

> I'm curious: what's wrong with myFunc(List<BaseClass * >) ?? Well, nothing I suppose, except BaseClass cannot then be a template, and you cannot have derived class-specific return types like a template would allow. So, having BaseClassInt type return int from some function but BaseClassLong return a long gets more challenging than it should be. (I recognize all my examples so far had a void return type, that was just for simplicity). > But both BaseClass * and DerivedClass * are compatible with each other, and may convert into each other, as long as you know the pointer goes to the right kind of class) Which loses type safety, unfortunately. > In this case, we've created a static_assert (aka: a compile-time error will pop up) if T does not convert into BaseClass I'll look into the static_assert() option, could prove useful in some cases. At the end of the day, there are two things at play here - my lack of C++ familiarity, and in some cases it's just how C++ is. It is a strange feeling though, having a language limit your expressiveness for the first time...