[boost] Re: new initialization lib, any interest?

From: Vincent Finn (vincent_finn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 06:18:09

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> 
>>I have one suggestion though
>>is it possible to take the functions used as an argument of some sort
>>i.e. use push_op() in the class and this would be push() or push_back()
>>etc as appropriate !
>>A vector\deque\list version could be typedef'd
>>as could a map version etc...
> 
> I'm not sure what technique you refer to. Anyway, how should one know to
> typedef the right typedef depending on compiler and library? Boost config?

I was thinking of the way that people managed to pork the Loki library 
for VC6 by changing the partial specialization of the classes to 
something else!
As to what they did I have no idea but from reading some of the other 
replys you have got maybe 'Yitzhak' can tell you :-)

> I think that the stuff you downloaded need some refractoring regarding
> hearder files. I'm considering
> two alternatives:
> 
> /init/vector.hpp
> /init/deque.hpp
> ... <one for each header>
> /enum.hpp
> 
> or
> 
> /imap.hpp // all map stuff
> /iseq.hpp   // vector, deque
> /iset.hpp
> /iadap.hpp // stack queue
> /enum.hpp
> 
> In the last approach one would also need some config macros s.t. libraries
> without hash based containers canuse the same header. A third
> alternative would be to provide fine granularity for those who wants it and
> a really big chunk as now. Suggestions are welcome.

Sounds good, minimize dependencies and all that.

        Vin