From: Daryle Walker (dwalker07_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-13 00:19:44
On Saturday, July 12, 2003, at 9:21 PM, Joaquín M López Muñoz wrote:
> Hi again,
> ----- Mensaje Original -----
> De: Fernando Cacciola <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
> Fecha: Sábado, Julio 12, 2003 7:32 pm
> Asunto: [boost] Re: Re: Interest in multiindex_set?(again)
> [stuff about conceptual structure of multtindex_set deleted]
> OK, I'm glad we finally got to understand each other :) There's a
> problem with the name of the class. Others have expressed dislike for
> "multtindex_set". Alternative candidates are "indexed_set" and
> "indexed_table". I haven't decided yet for one, plus there's the
> problem of which namespace should this live in (regardless of whether
> it is promoted to namespace boost later). The alternatives so far are
> (name of the class/associated namespace)
> * multiindex_set/boost::multiindex
> * indexed_set/??
> * indexed_table/??
> * ??/boost::container (proposed by Daryle)
> boost::container I don't like because some of the associated small
> utility classes and functions (less_by, get, project) shouldn't really
> belong into a general-purpose namespace like container which is
> supposed to hold other contributions. Also, there's the additional
> problem that the class and the namespace shouldn't be named the same
> (it makes some compilers choke, this has been discussed in connection
> with Boost.Tuple). Suggestions in this area are most welcome.
If the small utility classes are sufficiently independent from your
main classes, then put them in separate (possibly unrelated)
namespaces. I don't we've ever reviewed a multi-domain package,
though. Or we can review the utility parts separately, first.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk