Re: [boost] [indexed_set] revised naming proposal

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-11 17:12:21

On 4/10/04 5:13 PM, "JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

[SNIP]
> NAMESPACE
> * Proposal: boost::multi_index. This differs from
> the previous proposal in which boost::container is
> not used; rationale: resulting qualified ids would
> be too long, which would force most users to use
> namespace aliases (not a good thing, this has been
> discused before in connection with Boost.Filesystem)
> or apply using directives. Another reason is that a
> good deal of preexisting Boost containers don't live
> in boost::container and it does not seem such a
> migration will ever take place.
[TRUNCATE]

But a lot of containers were made before the initiative for sub-namespaces.
Some library has to volunteer to be the first of a new namespace.  Also,
isn't "multi_index" longer than "container" (unless you were going to add an
inner sub-namespace, which probably would be too much)?  Would any other
type besides your current ones ever qualify to go into a "multi_index"
namespace?  We should limit the number of exclusive namespaces (unless the
library is ridiculously huge, like Regex or Spirit).

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com