[fpc-pascal] Re: State of fcl-stl generics lib
florian at freepascal.org
Sun Jan 20 15:30:56 CET 2013
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
> 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
More information about the fpc-pascal