associate_list( Was: [boost] [BGL] MutablePropertyGraph questions)

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-03 01:53:54

Hi Emily,

 >>ghost> I think the best approach would be to make this concept explicit, and
 >>ghost> independent from BGL. Something like
 >>ghost>
 >>ghost>    type_indexed_container<
 >>ghost>      mpl::list<
 >>ghost> 	pair<vertex_name_t, int >,
 >>ghost> 	pair<vertex_distance_t, int> > > c;
 >>ghost>    c[vertex_name_t()] = 10;
 >>ghost> 	I wonder if something like this already exists... I vaguely recall
 >>ghost> someone was doing that.
 >>
 >>Yes, Emily Winch was working on this, and I thought she was going to
 >>submit to boost. The following URL has a paper she wrote about this.
 >>
 >>http://www.oonumerics.org/tmpw01/schedule.html
 >
 >
 > I would be very happy to submit it to boost, and several people have
 > suggested this. I think it would be a mistake to submit it for a formal
 > review without any prior discussion.
 >
 > I have mentioned this a couple of times now, and the lack of feedback
 > led me to think that nobody was particularly interested in it. That's
 > easy to believe, since when I wrote the paper it was really more from a
 > "hey, this is cool" perspective than "hey, this would be really useful".
 >
 > However, people keep asking about it, or suggesting similar ideas, which
 > suggests that there is some interest.
 >
 > So, I have a question: Why no feedback?

Personally, I did not really notice your announcements. Some time ago
I wanted a dynamic type-indexed container, in which you specify the
required type, and it's either returned, or created. After quite look
on some email of yours I decided it's something different and stopped reading.

Now I think that using associative_list in BGL is desirable.

(BTW, looks like with a little tweak I can achive the desired
on-demand creation using your library, too).

 > a) The library is not something that people think makes sense in Boost.
 > b) The library uses the wrong approach to the problem and someone should
 > submit something else.
 > c) The library is not something that anyone would really use. (Hey,
 > Jeremy. I'm sure you said you would use it).

Did Jeremy say that? It would be great!

 > d) People think it's a great idea but just never got round to having a
 > look or making any comments.

So true! However, I'll do my best to look at your library in detail during
this week.

- Volodya