Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
From: Brian Wood (woodbrian77_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-07 22:17:48

Joachim Faulhaber writes:
>2010/3/7 Brian Wood <woodbrian77_at_[hidden]>:
>> Joachim Faulhaber writes:
>>
>
>> If you stick
>> with the names of some of the classes that you have today,
>> at the very least, I'll put off developing marshalling support for
>> the library.
>
>To give you a little feed back: The sentence above didn't exactly make
>me feel in peace with you ;-/ But I'm open for your suggestions.

I was being blunt in order to let you know where I stand.
I think the ITL is an interesting library and we may add
marshalling support for it at some point.   My suggestion
is to not use the exact same class names in your library
as are already used in the standard library.   With the
Boost::Intrusive library there is some of that as well.
However, he has a class called  rbtree that is an
alternative to intrusive::(set and multiset).  That rbtree
class I support while for the time being I don't support
the intrusive set or multiset.    I'm not familiar enough
with your library to know if an itl_rbtree class would be
workable, but mention it just in case.

Regards,
Brian Wood
http://webEbenezer.net
[phone]