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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk