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

From: Jason House (jhouse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-24 11:57:14

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:

> That said, it is generally desireable that common functionality
> is provided through the same interface (for example,
> hash_set and std::set both being containers, the provide
> begin() and end() ).

You made good points why they could not have identical interfaces.  But 
then begin() and end() is a rather minimalist overlap of functionality. 
  Is there any reason for a set-like index and a hash-like interface to 
differ in the random access function call?  What about with a map-like 
index?
   I don't know how much can be unified, but it seems like it might be 
wise to consider it before an index interface is selected. The 
differences between std::map<int,foo> and std::vector<foo> tend to 
bother me since they tend to fill a similar functionality niche, 
different complexity guarantees, and incompatible interfaces.  I really 
am just trying to make sure that such headaches don't pop up in the use 
of indexed_set...  Especially for such simple motivations as changing 
complexity guarantees.

> I'm not sure if this addresses your question. In case
> it doesn't, please tell me so.

I think you addressed my question pretty well.  I think that I still 
needed to clarify what I am thinking.  I hope what I wrote above helps.

> PS. I'd appreciate if someone can run the test cases
> in MSVC++ 6.5 *release mode*. It works OK in my machine, but
> Pavel reports crashes for that configuration on his box,
> so I'd like to have a third opinion.

6.5?  Which one is that?  MSVC 6 with SP5 installed?  I might be able to 
help, but *after* the holiday season (ie. maybe in 2 weeks).

> 
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
> Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>