On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 14:47, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
? 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.
A tree is an implementation detail. For example a set could be
implemented using a tree.
I understand you the first time :-)
For me, a tree is at the same level as a set. Whatever models your data best.
That you can implement a data structure internally using a tree (or vice versa)
is for me not a criterium. You could probably implement a tree using vector.
or stacks, queues or whatnot (maybe not very efficient, but that is not the point).
Or you could implement a set using a vector or vice versa.
From that perspective, the vector is an implementation detail of the tree.
Yet vector is part of fcl-stl... So I see no difference whatsoever.
Anyway, I didn't mean to argue. I'm just saying:
If someone wants to take control of fcl-stl: please do so.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
