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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-08 14:37:46

2010/3/8 Brian Wood <woodbrian77_at_[hidden]>:
> 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.

Why not just support the class templates with the names that you like
and just ignoring the rest?

Regards,
Joachim