Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
From: Brian Wood (woodbrian77_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-08 18:26:40
Joachim Faulhaber writes:
>2010/3/7 Brian Wood <woodbrian77_at_[hidden]>:
>> 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?
I may do that. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk