From: Jason House (jhouse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-22 10:31:15
Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
> The main advantage is IMHO replacement of traditional
> "many simple data structures + complex algorithms" with
> "one powerfull data structure + simple algorithms".
There is another criteria that I think should be important: Enabling the
user to alter the "one powerful data structure" after the "simple
algorithms" have been written. My concern is that when indexed_set
replaces one index with another (ie. in terms of underlying data
structure), the manipulating functions will change. I would hope that a
diversity of index types could be made that all shared the same
interface. For that very reason, I've been thinking that it might be
nice to see a few diverse index types implemented for the review of
indexed_set. Of course, the implication of that is possibly a lot of
work and I feel uncomfortable suggesting it when I'm such a passive
member of boost :(
Another interesting thought that I had (after reading what you wrote) is
that it would be nice if the data structure could be accessed by views,
independent of if those views exist to begin with. I'm thinking along
the lines of SQL databases where certain columns are indexed and others
are not. What I'm thinking is that it would be nice if the fact that
something is indexed or not would not change how the accessing code is
written (like in SQL). This would really allow massive changes in the
underlying data structure without rewriting of code (something that I
really like to avoid doing).
To clarify this, I'm thinking of a templated get-like function where
the template parameter is the sorting functor (possibly even a few other
policy-like parameters to help selection of the best index or iterator).
Does that sound off the wall? Or is that a good idea?
> Since data structures are usually easily reusable it may
> result in higher programmer productivity.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk