From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-26 05:29:07
Hi Gary, thanks for reviewing the library!
Powell, Gary <powellg <at> amazon.com> writes:
> I made an earlier comment about operator== et.al.[...] I don't see the harm
in fixing containers as they are
> proposed to boost though. When we first wrote the VTL library we did this
with no ill effects.
I don't see any problem either. I'll implement it and will commit
if no weird things show up.
> I have not run any timing tests, of using this container vs using two (N)
maps with links or whatever with
> pointers to the same data.
Have you looked at the performance section?
> A small nit, sequenced_index::remove and sequenced_index_remove should be
called "erase". Its a small
> nit because they live in "details". But really they do erase.
Umm... Sequenced indices are modelled after std::list, which
contains both erase and remove operations, with different
semantics (remove meaning erasing *all* elements with a given
> Also you should look at Dave Abraham's and my paper on Move semantics/copy
construction vs Andrei's MOJO.
> IMO Its worth implementing. :>
> I vote to accept unconditionally.
Sweet! Thank you, I knew the lambda hook would work :)
If you still have time to devote to the library, please
please take a look at the review notes on naming and
header organization and cast your opinions:
I'm less than satisfied with some of the current
naming decisions, and now it's a good time to improve
them. I'm planning on posting a naming scheme candidate
by the end of the review, trying to gather reviewers'
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica, InvestigaciÃ³n y Desarrollo.
> Sorry to hear about your cat. I had one that only made it to 3 yrs, and
that was hard to take. But cats gotta be cats.
Thanks. First time I had an animal companion in decades,
so I wasn't prepared for this sense of loss.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk