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
> libraries than in the container ones. So if the name-clashing problem is not
> 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)
These are *public* classes. Would you choose to have them in
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica, InvestigaciÃ³n y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk