[boost] Re: New proposal for boost: carray

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-01-09 12:34:16

Dave Abrahams writes:
 > I support providing a wrapper for the ordinary pointers in which so much
 > existing code traffics. It doesn't bother me that we might have two
 > different array wrappers. I think the proposed name could be improved, and
 > that would solve some of the problems of the existing proposal.
 > 
 > array_ptr would be a better name. After all, 1. it is a wrapper for a
 > pointer 2. we don't expect these objects to behave like references when
 > assigned, do we?

Right, I was already thinking of the name ptr_array as a replacement :)

 > There may be even better names possible, but first we ought to address the
 > following:
 > 
 > Q: Why are we doing this? A: to write generic code which uses a subset of
 > the Container requirements.
 > 
 > Do we have a name for the concept you want to make available? [I regret that
 > the standard library has defined "Container" to be something so very
 > specialized, and which does not include so many things we'd like to call
 > Containers]

Good call. How about "Collection"?

 > > so it would be ok to use the reversible_container_helper
 > > (which perhaps should be added to boost/operators.hpp).
 > 
 > I would not support adding that to operators.hpp, since it has little to do
 > with the original purpose of that header as reflected in its name. Probably
 > the stuff devoted strictly to iterators should be separated into another
 > file if you feel strongly that this class is related to that stuff.

Or maybe have a new file devoted to container helpers (you are right,
it's not that related)

-Jeremy