[boost] Re: IndexedSet Review: unified proposal for naming

From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-30 16:12:19

Pavol Droba <droba <at> topmail.sk> writes:

> 
> > 
> > NAMESPACE
> > * Proposal: boost::container::multi_index
[...]
> I have just one remark about the namespace usage. IMHO it is an overkill to
> provide a special namespace for every container. 
> I think, that putting this all containers into boost::container namespace 
> is verbose enough.
> 
> There has been very similar discussion about the algorithm namespace 
> (namely the string algorithm library). Current situation is that everything
> resides in boost::algorithm namespace and interface names are lifted to boost
> namespace. This model has been settled as a reasonable compromise.
> 
> It is worth to mention, that there are generaty more free stading names in 
algorithm
> libraries than in the container ones. So if the name-clashing problem is not 
here,
> I don't see it in container case.
> 
[...]

I think indexed_set (or composite_container) cannot
live without a namespace ot its own. There are many utility
classes around the container with names like (to pick a few)

* tag
* index
* member
* identity

These are *public* classes. Would you choose to have them in
boost::container?

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo