RE: [boost] Re: Naming Issues [part of Formal Review: Indexed Set]

From: Paul A Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-24 07:03:02

Just because I'm English doesn't mean I am right ;-)

(But then nor does that mean that internet users are right either.)

I have glanced at the review notes but don't feel able to make any
helpful comment - except that naming is important but clearly especially
tricky.

Consistency IS valuable though - it is irritating to try to remember if
a _ is needed or not - and I usually don't - leading to a blizzard of
warning messages from the oligo-neuronic compiler.

So I feel you should either go for always using multi_, or never.  And
since STL already uses multimap, you should ignore my hyper-sensibility
about "multiindex" in names (and that would make it odd in the text).

(Aside - I don't like "mix" at all, but I do like ordered rather
regular).

Sorry this isn't much help.

Paul

PS At least english is unreceptive to authority and always receptive to
new words, preferably stolen!

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Joaquin M 
| Lopez Munoz
| Sent: 23 March 2004 14:31
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: Naming Issues [part of Formal Review: 
| Indexed Set]
| 
| 
| Paul A Bristow <boost <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:
| > 
| > | -----Original Message-----
| > | From: boost-bounces <at> lists.boost.org 
| > | [mailto:boost-bounces <at> lists.boost.org] 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
| 
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: 
| http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cg| i/boost
| 
|