From: John E. Potter (jpotter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-01 12:47:01
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on 5/31/00 5:38 AM, Mark Rodgers at mark.rodgers_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > Are users ever expected to use associative_vector directly,
> > or just indirectly via vector_set and vector_multiset? If
> > the latter, shouldn't associative_vector be in a detail
> > namespace, and perhaps associative_vector.hpp could live in
> > the detail directory??? Without documentation it's hard
> > to tell... :-)
> The former, actually. I would have put it in detail if I intended to protect
associative_vector<int, int, identity<int>, less<int> > v;
sort(v.begin(), v.end(), greater<int>());
As long as that does not bother you.
> Actually, I've been aiming at something else which I haven't
> yet implemented, and now I realize I need a little bit of redesign to get
> there. One thing I want to end up with is an indirect_vector_set<T>, IOW a
> class with the same interface but which stores pointers to T instead of Ts
> directly (I need stable pointers and references across inserts).
Yes. It will also allow map with pair<Key const, Value>. My students
implemented a student quality version of this last year. Outperformed
the sgi map even with highly dynamic (erase/insert) use.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk