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

leledumbo leledumbo_cool at yahoo.co.id
Sun Jan 20 15:21:25 CET 2013

> 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.
I agree with Michael, and I implement this to leverage tree as more than
just backend of some container (e.g. set and map) to stand as a container on
its own. Isn't it a good idea to have a tree that can act as both backend
and be used standalone? From tree, graph can also be built (but I'd rather
separate the implementation to have tree optimized version of the traversal
algorithm, no need to check for "mark as visited").

View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/State-of-fcl-stl-generics-lib-tp5712537p5712606.html
Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list