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

[Richard B. Kreckel]

I wrote:

>
> The problem is we can't have template <template <class, class> class 
> C> class container besides template <template <class> class C> class 
> container. But in this case, I think we can just name the former 
> diffently, for example container_with_allocator. The attached patch is 
> a quick shot: on first sight it's uglier that what has been suggested 
> before (writing template <template< class T, class A = 
> std::allocator<T> > class C> class container, but it doesn't turn all 
> container types into container-assuming-STL types.
>
> It has the problem that it still fails to link and on gcc-4.2 it even 
> fails to compile with very strange error mesages from the assembler. 
> But, heck, who cares!?


Okay, attached is a completed version of that patch.  The link failures 
turned out to be due to some pieces still missing.  And the assembler 
weirdness has gone away with a new snapshot of the compiler (dated 
2006-05-06).

I'm undecided: check that in or check in the other alternative that 
basically makes all containers std::allocator<ex> based?  In any case, I 
don't think this is anything for the 1.3 branch since it changes the 
signature of everything containing a GiNaC::lst.  Maybe toss a coin?

  -richy.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: container.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 28180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/attachments/20060509/185b040e/attachment.bin>