BLS Wrote: > On 26/05/2010 01:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > > I can probably submit my basic implementations, and use them from std.x > > to implement dcollections. This way, the complex pieces are shared. > > Dcollections definitely fills needs that this collection package > > doesn't, and it should be mostly compatible. > > > > -Steve > > Not that I like the idea of having (once again) two libs instead of one, > but I am convinced that the separation between > core data- structures, say xxTree, xxList, xxNode etc. > and the final implementation f.i. Set, Dictionary/Map. > is a very good thing.
I don't think it will be analogous to a Tango/Phobos separation. Dcollections supports ranges, and the major interface to Andrei's containers is ranges, and if my implementations are accepted, both will probably even be using the same underlying implementations. So I think the two libs will quite happily exist together. I am disappointed that dcollections wasn't chosen, but given the eventual API that Andrei has come up with, I think it didn't really have a shot from the beginning. > I regret a bit that you haven't picked up the idea of collection events. > IMHO this is the smartest way to implement a UnDo/ReDo Stack or to > create a MultiSet based on a simple Set. I don't know much about it. If it makes sense to be used in dcollections, I might do it. Right now, however, I want to concentrate on getting dcollections out of beta. -Steve
