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

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

> Am 20.01.2013 15:37, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>
>>> Am 20.01.2013 15:16, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> A set is defined by some properties and possible operations like that it
>>> can contain each element only once, that it is possible to build
>>> intersections, unions etc.
>>
>> Aha... That's a mathematical definition.
>
> It is a definition, yes.
>
>>
>> So: A graph is also mathematically defined. And a tree is just a
>> specialized graph.
>
> So a number is also at the same level? It is also mathematically defined
> :) So even ansi pascal has generics, it has numbers: integers and reals :)

Exactly :-)

Like I said, I didn't mean to argue.

For me there is no difference, but then I have no affinity with Generics.

Just to say that I am not suitable to maintain fcl-stl. 
But someone should definitely take care of it.

Michael.