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

[Jens Vollinga]

Hi,

Richard B. Kreckel schrieb:
> Patch 1 ([1a] or [1b]):
> Turn the template <template <class> class C> container into template 
> <template <class T, class = std::allocator<T> > class C> container. Pro: 
> Binary compatible (can be applied to 1.3-branch). Con: The intent is to 
> express container of something and some allocator but rather container 
> of something.

> Patch 3):
> Change template <template <class> class C> container into template 
> <template <class> class C> container_without_allocator and add a 
> template <template <class, class> class C> container to be used with STL 
> types. Pro: Binary compatible (can be applied to 1.3-branch). Con: 
> Attaches a strange name to the "normal" case and a clear name to the 
> special case. Same code duplication as in patch 2.

Why is patch 3 binary compatible? Doesn't the name 
container[_without_allocater] appear mangled in the ABI?

> 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?

> This might be a good time for asking about the status of HEAD and the 
> branch. Are there any projects pending? Jens, could you roll a release 
> (whichever version) in the not so far future (including regenerated 
> Bison files)?

Anytime until Monday evening :-) And then again starting from one week 
later on. Any preference?

Regards,
Jens