Re: [boost] [Formal review] Collection Traits library

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-05 13:56:05

Pavol Droba wrote:

>On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 06:35:31AM -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>  
>
>>Pavol Droba writes:
>>    
>>
>>>On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:10:48AM +0800, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>John Torjo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Thorsten,
>>>>>
>>>>>about the name of the library:
>>>>>Not sure why it's called collection traits, since IMO it should better 
>>>>>be called either sequence traits, container traits, range traits or 
>>>>>array traits.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>I agree. I think sequence traits is most appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>You are not quite right. Sequence concept is precisely defined in C++ standard.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, and that's unfortunate, because it is essentially a dead concept -- "nobody"
>>writes generic code that relies on it -- that has occupied a good name. In fact, 
>>"Collection" is exactly the word that would perfectly fit to describe what the 
>>standard choose to refer to as "Sequence". I don't think going the other way 
>>around would be a good call. In CS terminology, collections are inherently 
>>associated with storage; using the term to name the concept that explicitly aims 
>>at representing sequences that do not necessarily have any is IMO a bad idea.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Collection traits are not implementig this concept, they don't even implement
>>>full Container concept. So if would be very misleading to use the name of it.
>>>Collection traits are working with structures that model Collection concept,
>>>therfore they should be named after it IMHO.
>>>      
>>>
>>"Collection" is an unfortunate name for the concept. Not having "Sequence" at our
>>disposal, it should be called "Iterator Range" or something along these lines.
>>
>>    
>>
>Well I cannot judge the standard naming, however I think, that some standardization
>is better then none. So if there is a definition we should change the standard of 
>stick to it. Later is probably more feasible.
>
>I found collection easy to understand. I don't understand what is wrong with it.
>It very well fits into the standard concept hierarchy
>
>Collection < Container < Sequence
>                       < Associative container
>
>  
>
in my mind, when I say collection, I always think of a map/multimap 
(associative container).
For instance, just think of VB's Collection class.

Best,
John

-- 
John Torjo
Freelancer
-- john_at_[hidden]
-- http://www.torjo.com/logview/ - viewing/filtering logs is just too easy!