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

[Richard B. Kreckel]

Hi!

Jens Vollinga wrote:

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


The name container<T> does indeed appear in the symbols.  However, there 
is no change to the functions that take a container<T> as one of the 
arguments, the type is the same.  The name 
container_without_allocator<T> does not appear because it wouldn't be 
used in any of the existing functions (yet?).  It may be surprising, but 
I've actually checked it: the set of text symbols provided by the 
library is not changed by either patch 1 or 3.

>
>> 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.

On another note: I'm just thinking that some of the code duplication can 
be avoided by deriving both classes from a common base basic_container 
that brings with it most of the implementation.

Cheers
  -richy.

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