> Sure it is, but I can't claim I understand what you mean in this particular
> case...
>
> Arkadiy
Sorry, i was unclear.
I should look at RTL closer to find similarities and differences to my idea.
But first glance reveals difference between two:
RTL : all classes are templates and one can adapt them to his needs.
library has a lot of compile time things.
pros:
speed - a lot of compile time optimization.
cons:
size - each object has at least one table template instantination.
flexibility - one can not define table schema in runtime ( i'm not
sure ).
my : all classes are completely runtime.
table class is similar to std::ostream.
The only difference means that table contents
is structured.
it means that you can do following:
class A;
in_memory_builder b;
table& t = b.create_table();
A::define_table( t ); //user func
A x,y,z;
x.add_record( t ); //analogy to std::ostream is "t << x;"
y.add_record( t );
z.add_record( t );
gui_grid_control.show( t );
to_xml( t, "out.xml" );
no templates!
pros:
fexibility - runtime table definition
size - fixed set of classes
cons:
speed - most probably a lot of virtual functions.
Note! My knowledges about RTL are far from good. Just first glance.
I failed to compile rtl with my compiler. Will try once again.
regards,
bohdan
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
