On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 14:22, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 11:15, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 06:17, schrieb leledumbo:
No one seems to see: http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=23654 :(
Well, it's a new feature: just slapping another piece of code into
fpc-stl not improving existing stuff.
No, but adding things from time to time shows it is not dead code :-)
Indeed, but the additions should follow a common goal and as far as I
understood, fcl-stl shall provide opaque containers which is not the
case for a tree implementation.
? Why not ? I see no difference with a list or collection ?
A tree is something implementation specific while the fpc-stl is only
about opaque data structures. E.g. the fpc-stl supports TSet: but the
whole implementation is hidden. The user does not/need not to know how
the set works internally. It could be a linked list, a tree, whatever.
For me, a tree is a data structure, just like a set, list, collection,
queue, whatever.
Generics for me are just a way to say 'we don't know the actual data type yet'
for a particular data structure, and then later create the data structure with
a specific type.
So, in my head, it's perfectly OK to have a tree in fcl-stl.
But like I said in earlier posts: I have no affinity whatsoever with generics,
so I'm not very well placed to make judgments.
Well, all the more reason for someone to actually take control of fcl-stl :-)
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
