Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bohdan (warever_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-19 09:57:34

> Sure it is, but I can't claim I understand what you mean in this particular
> case...
> Arkadiy

Sorry, i was unclear.
I should look at RTL closer to find similarities and differences to my idea.
But first glance reveals difference between two:

RTL : all classes are templates and one can adapt them to his needs.
      library has a lot of compile time things.

            speed - a lot of compile time optimization.
            size - each object has at least one table template instantination.
            flexibility - one can not define table schema in runtime ( i'm not
sure ).

my : all classes are completely runtime.
      table class is similar to std::ostream.
      The only difference means that table contents
      is structured.
      it means that you can do following:

           class A;
           in_memory_builder b;
           table& t = b.create_table();
           A::define_table( t ); //user func
           A x,y,z;
           x.add_record( t ); //analogy to std::ostream is "t << x;"
           y.add_record( t );
           z.add_record( t );
  t );
           to_xml( t, "out.xml" );

       no templates!
            fexibility - runtime table definition
            size - fixed set of classes
            speed - most probably a lot of virtual functions.

Note! My knowledges about RTL are far from good. Just first glance.
I failed to compile rtl with my compiler. Will try once again.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at