Am 20.01.2013 15:21, schrieb leledumbo: >> For good reasons. As said before a tree is an implementation detail. > When having a fully implemented C++ STL one really seldomly needs an > explicit tree implementation. Of course, there are special cases which > are speed/memory sensitive which require to implement explicitly a tree > but in this case a generic tree is probably also the wrong choice > because it does not allow the hand crafted optimizations needed in such > cases. > > This is what I see from the POV of C++ STL designer, while I take Boost POV.
Then it should go in a separate package like fcl-trees. At least I don't consider a tree as something fitting in fcl-stl being a generic library in the strict sense, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_programming#Stepanov-Musser_and_other_generic_programming_paradigms _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
