[GiNaC-devel] Class container vs. the holy standard?

[Richard B. Kreckel]

On 2006-07-25, I wrote:

>>>> Although it may appear confusing I am inclined to check in patch 3 
>>>> to the 1.3-branch and patch 2 to HEAD. I'm going to do that within 
>>>> a few days unless somebody raises objections.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think patch 3 is superior to patch 1? (Just) Consistent 
>>> naming?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that patch 2 is superior to patch 1: 
>> <http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/2006-April/000950.html>. 
>> Also, patch 2 is superior to patch 3. But patch 2 can only go into 
>> HEAD, not into the branch. I'm not so sure whether patch 3 is really 
>> superior to patch 1, but I thought that if patch 2 is going into 
>> HEAD, then patch 3 would be more appropiate for the branch because of 
>> reasons of symmetry. 
>
>
>
> Upon some more consideration, this appears to be rubbish, I'm afraid. 
> I'm not going to change the semantics of the template container<> from 
> release 1.3 to 1.4. So, patch 1 is going in to the 1.3-branch and a 
> slimmed-down version of patch 2 is going in to HEAD RSN. Thank you for 
> being skeptical.
>

Upon even more consideration, I started to be skeptical of the 
two-classes patch (container and container_with_allocator) for several 
reasons:

1) There's some interference between the two classes' names.
2) It's not even clear if the one without allocator is ever used.
3) It incurs more code to maintain.
4) If, at some time in the future, somebody needs a container<template 
<class> class>, it might well be that it can be solved with a revised C++0x.

I've committed the simple patch on both the 1.3 branch and HEAD.

Cheers
  -richy.

-- 
Richard B. Kreckel
<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>