[boost] Re: Pre-submission: container algorithms

From: Reid Sweatman (reids_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-08 14:13:22

Trivia:  since everyone here seems to prefer Latinate or pseudo-Greek naming
conventions, why not "nodal" and "non_nodal," or "anodal?"  <Sort of a
half-hearted <g>>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Abrahams [mailto:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 7:33 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Pre-submission: container algorithms
> 
> 
> Valentin expounded:
> 
> >> It's a good concept. I agree with Nico that the node_based part is
> >> distasteful. Why not just call the algorithm 
> erase_and_return_count or
> >> something? It could give different efficiency guarantees 
> for non-node-based
> >> containers That would be analogous to the other STL 
> components which have
> >> different performance depending on iterator category.
> >
> > There is no way to write this stuff w/o traits,
> > w/o user selection of the right function and
> > w/o loss of genericity.
> 
> And then he said:
> 
> >No way.
> 
> Valentin, I never made a claim to the contrary. I was only 
> talking about the
> names chosen (e.g. "node_based..."), not the traits technique.
> 
> -Dave
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> FreeShop is the #1 place for free and trial offers and great deals!
> Try something new and find out how you could win two 
> round-trip tickets       
> anywhere in the U.S.! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/368
> 
> 
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications