From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-13 12:29:28
Now wait a sec: I think we may be following a false profit[sic] in trying to
capture the internal ordering characteristics in the name of the concept.
The concepts given us by the STL tend to describe the interface provided by
instances of the concept. The interface provided by the (possibly unordered)
bag we've been talking about (push, pop, top...) is the same as that
provided by the queues. There is no precedent in the STL for capturing as a
concept something which can't be explicitly specified in the concept
description. "There is some kind of deterministic ordering going on" is
outside the bounds of a concept description as I see it.
I think "bag" is a fine name, despite contradictory uses elsewhere.
Smalltalk is enough of a precedent for me. If we're going to pick a name
other than "bag", so be it, but let us not waste any time trying to capture
anything as vague as "ordering is deterministic but otherwise unspecified".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk