[boost] Re: Formal Review: Indexed Set

From: Matthew Vogt (mvogt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-28 21:23:34

Jeff Garland <jeff <at> crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:

> > I didn't think of a general alternative name for the library. 
> > Boost.MultiIndex? 
> 
> Can't tell that it relates to containers...
> 
> > Boost.Multicontainer?
> 
> Yeah, but why doesn't it include multi_array?  I don't think this one can 
> work.
> 
> > Boost.Container.MultiIndex (in sync with the namespace)?
> 
> Would be my choice except I think Boost Multi-Index Containers reads better 
> and would be fine even if the namespace boost::container::multi_index.

I vote for the fully-spelled out 'Multi-Indexed Containers'.

Multi-Index doesn't have much meaning when separated from the 'container' part
of the name, and Multi-Container is misleading.

'namespace boost::container::multi_index' seems fine in code, though.

> Well, I'm actually not very concerned about the namespace -- it's the 
> directory structure that is a major hassle to fix: CVS, doc pointers, etc.  
> Its possible the other authors of containers won't want to refactor the 
> directory structure.

Somewhat off-topic - has sourceforge made any pronouncements regarding a
possible migration to SVN?

Aside from easing problems with directories and moving, I would have thought
they'd have a lot to gain from it's implementation details.