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

[Richard B. Kreckel]

Richard B. Kreckel 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.

  -richy.

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