[boost] Re: Collection concept

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-01-11 20:31:42

Dave Abrahams writes:
 > > So I'll word it, "if the value type has public members, then the
 > > Collection's reference type must also provide the member access
 > > operator"
 > 
 > Umm, "member access operator"?!?
 > 
 > You know, we don't have operator.() in C++.

I know, that is the problem we are trying to carefully step around. I
made this more clear in the last update to the docvault.

Basically what I was trying to say is that proxied containers would
only satisfy Collection in particular cases when the value type has no
public members (like vector<bool>). A proxied containers would not
satisfy Collection when the value type has members.

 > I think you should clarify (and I predict it will not be easy to do so!)
 > 
 > Also, I would particularly like to hear from Howard and Greg on this, since
 > they have both had experience with proxied containers. Does this reflect the
 > intended concept, or would it be acceptable for member access to fail for
 > references?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy Siek
 Ph.D. Candidate                  email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Univ. of Notre Dame         work phone: [phone]
 and                         cell phone: [phone]
 C++ Library & Compiler Group       fax: [phone]
 SGI                                www: http://www.lsc.nd.edu/~jsiek/
----------------------------------------------------------------------