From: Emily Winch (emily_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-21 18:01:43
Jeremy Siek wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Emily Winch wrote:
[ snip ]
>emily> That begs the question, do the functors need to know the names? Can
>emily> think of a use for an associative_list that would require that? The
>emily> mentions some, but none of them to my mind are sufficient to justify
>emily> capability without more concrete evidence that they'd be useful to
>emily> in real life.
>I think the functors would indeed need to know the names. BTW, I would use
>the term "key" instead of "name", since that is the terminology typically
>used with an association list. So I would pass the functor some kind of
>key-value pair, where the key is just a unique type, and the value is the
>associated value object.
Oh excellent. I've been playing with this, and it all falls into place
While I agree that "varlist" was a nasty name, I'm not sold on
associative_list. It has an lot of syllables (but not as many as
const_associative_list_iterator...), and makes it difficult to keep line
down. I think multimap (thanks Dave) is almost right, except this thing
doesn't have the logarithmic-time lookup of multimap. I suppose I could go
assoc_list, but that's unpronounceable. Any other ideas?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk