[fpc-pascal] Re: State of fcl-stl generics lib

[Florian Klämpfl]

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