[boost] Re: Interest in multiindex_set?(again)

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.
[TRUNCATE]

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.

Daryle