From: jackthompson99 (JMThompson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 01:19:12
--- In boost_at_y..., "Emily Winch" <emily_at_b...> wrote:
> Jeremy Siek wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Emily Winch wrote:
> [ snip ]
> >emily> That begs the question, do the functors need to know the
> >emily> think of a use for an associative_list that would require
> >emily> mentions some, but none of them to my mind are sufficient
> >emily> capability without more concrete evidence that they'd be
> >emily> in real life.
> >I think the functors would indeed need to know the names. BTW, I
> >the term "key" instead of "name", since that is the terminology
> >used with an association list. So I would pass the functor some
> >key-value pair, where the key is just a unique type, and the value
> >associated value object.
> Oh excellent. I've been playing with this, and it all falls into
> nicely. Thanks.
> 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
> down. I think multimap (thanks Dave) is almost right, except this
> doesn't have the logarithmic-time lookup of multimap. I suppose I
> assoc_list, but that's unpronounceable. Any other ideas?
Ever think of just using the name "heterogeny", or "heterogenous"?
Maybe even "heter_list" or "HeterList".