Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: mud grammar
> From: claw#null,net
> >> I was hoping soneome here would use ACE. I've been buried in
> >> working thru OSE again to see how it compares to OpenClass and
> >> (soon) RogueWave's STL. ACE's lack of docs has been offputting.
I am using two of RogueWave's STL classes. The priority queue and
hash table implementations. It happened to come bundled with BorlandC.
I disliked how iterators are used in STL. They seem rather clumsy to me.
The ForEach() iterator functions had a serious drawback to my
implementation
although I can't remember exactly what it was. I think it had something to
violating my data encapsulation. Much of STL is implemented in a style
that will offend many object-oriented purists and they make no apologies
for this. :-P
- Thread context:
- Re: mud grammar, (continued)
- Re: mud grammar,
Chris Gray cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA, Thu 13 Mar 1997, 10:11 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
claw claw#null,net, Tue 18 Mar 1997, 01:26 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
Nathan Yospe yospe#hawaii,edu, Tue 18 Mar 1997, 12:53 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
claw claw#null,net, Thu 20 Mar 1997, 00:16 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
Jon A. Lambert jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com, Thu 20 Mar 1997, 15:01 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
claw claw#null,net, Fri 21 Mar 1997, 22:32 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
Nathan Yospe yospe#hawaii,edu, Sat 22 Mar 1997, 07:38 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
coder coder#ibm,net, Mon 24 Mar 1997, 04:29 GMT
- Re: mud grammar,
Nathan Yospe yospe#hawaii,edu, Mon 24 Mar 1997, 05:25 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]