Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-23 09:30:33

Paul A Bristow <boost <at>> writes:
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces <at>
> | [mailto:boost-bounces <at>] On Behalf Of Pavel Vozenilek
> | 2. library specific names that won't fit into boost
> | namespace should be in "multiindex" namespace.
> The 'ii' looks a bit un-english.
> I would use a hyphen - as I am sure would Lynn Truss of "Eats, Shoots
> and Leaves' fame.
> (I felt this about the documentation too)
> So how about multi_index? Also consistent with "multi_container" where
> a _ is used?

This is supposed to be a brainstorming thread, so allow
me to dissent here :)
Lacking a solid English language intuition, I often use
Google to try to find "best uses": "multiindex" yields
20,300 hits, while "multi index" only produces 15,400
results. Note that "multi index" includes "multi-index"
as well as other variants, so the case for "multiindex"
seems to be even stronger than the raw figures show.
OTOH, "multi-indexing" seems far more common than
"multiindexing". Maybe we could stick with
boost::multiindex and change "multiindexing" with
"multi-indexing" in the text?

multi_container seems to me awkward if compared
to std::multimap. Why not multicontainer? Admiteddly, the
"multi" prefixes do not mean the same in both cases, which
could lead to confusion.

Have you had a chance to take a look at the review
notes? Some other alternatives are proposed there. I
particularly like the boost::mix proposal, though others
hate it.

> Unique is really unique.
> Is there _really_ a clash with STL usage?

Yep. The following

using namespace boost::indexed_sets;
using namespace std;

will raise the problem as soon as you declare
an unique regular index.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at