[boost] Re: Formal Review Request: Boost.IndexedSet

From: Jason House (jhouse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-23 21:09:25

Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:

> "Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> 
>>"Jason House" <jhouse_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>[indexed_set discussion]
> 
> 
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>If I understand you correctly, this is here. Indexes have the same interface
>>and differ only in type.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I believe he means multiple index types as in, for example, a hash
> table index in addition to the existing tree index.
> 
> [snip]

You are correct.  (sorry for the late follow up)
It would be really nice if items like moving from a tree index to a hash 
index simply involved changing a single line of code... the typedef 
indexed_set<...> definition.  I think this is a doable goal for a more 
standard set of index types, but might require going through the motions 
of trying to fit other index types in the same API before misnomers and 
other difficulties in the API pop up.