Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:34:28 -0400 From: Jason Tishler Subject: Re: rebasing new packages?! In-reply-to: <3CD1DDA8.60907@ece.gatech.edu> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-followup-to: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-id: <20020503133428.GD3216@tishler.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i References: <3CD1DDA8 DOT 60907 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Chuck, On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:45:28PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > however, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to refactor it away from STL > and just use "basic" libstdc++ stuff, right? I mean, Jason didn't go > absolutely template-crazy, did he? No, actual my (initial) rebase patch does not use templates at all. BTW, while I was flying to CA on a business trip a few weeks ago, I started to refactor my free_list and used_list classes to use a (STL-like) set template class. I was doing pretty good until I got to iterators... Nevertheless, every minute that I spent on reimplementing STL functionality just felt plain wrong. There is no way that I could (re)implement anything close to the quality of an STL container class. Jason