What distinguishes an abstract algorithm from a concrete function? This is best shown by example. Let's write a function to multiply each of the elements in an array by 2:
class array_of_ints {
int data[10] = {};
public:
int size() const { return 10; }
int& at(int i) { return data[i]; }
};
void double_each_element(array_of_ints& arr)
{
for (int i=0; i < arr.size(); ++i) {
arr.at(i) *= 2;
}
}
Our function double_each_element works only with objects of type array_of_int; passing in an object of a different type won't work (nor even compile). We refer to functions like this version of double_each_element as concrete or monomorphic functions. We call them concrete because they are insufficiently abstract for our purposes. Just imagine how painful it would be if the C++ standard library provided a concrete sort routine that worked only on one specific data type!
