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:
> * 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.
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk