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
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
my : all classes are completely runtime.
table class is similar to std::ostream.
The only difference means that table contents
it means that you can do following:
table& t = b.create_table();
A::define_table( t ); //user func
x.add_record( t ); //analogy to std::ostream is "t << x;"
y.add_record( t );
z.add_record( t );
gui_grid_control.show( t );
to_xml( t, "out.xml" );
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk