Re: [boost] Re: Re: [indexed_set] revised naming proposal

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-12 14:58:21

Hi Rob,

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Lunes, Abril 12, 2004 8:58 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] Re: Re: [indexed_set] revised naming proposal
> > > Why not just "index::list?"
> > 
> > "list" seems too terse to me. It could lead the reader
> > to think it is some sort of container (which is not). Take into
> > account the namespace can be populated in the future
> > with other containers derived from the main one.
> 
> I suppose in a given use case, a "using boost::index" (or "using
> boost::multi_index") may be in force, so it would boil down to
> just "list."
> 
> However, neither "index_list" nor "list" really says the right
> thing.  How about turning it around: list_index?

I don't get how list_index is more meaningful than
index_list. I mean, index_list is a list (a typelist,
actually) of indices (index specifiers, actually).
Would you care to ellaborate? (thanx!)

[...] 
> I agree with Thorsten's proposal.  "multi_index_container" is
> much clearer.

I'm recording your opinion (and Thorsten's) My intention
is to reach a final decision during this week.

> 
> > from my part here. There's still the pending issue of whether
> > to move into boost::container.
> 
> I think the argument that "a" container library has to be the
> first one is valid, but was there sufficient consensus that such
> a namespace was warranted?  If there is consensus, your library
> is a perfect candidate.  If there isn't, it would be painful to
> put your library in the "container" namespace only to rip it out
> later.  If you don't do it and folks agree it is worthwhile, then
> yours would be just one more library to move into the namespace
> at that time.
> 

Well, it's all about not wasting effort. Hopefully, some
other boosters (and the authors of container libraries
in Boost) will jump in and express themselves for a
tie-break. Jeff thinks more or less how you do
about not going down that road if no one else will follow.

On a more philosophical level, I don't quite like
the idea of 1st level namespaces per se. IMHO, these are
the most plausible justifications for this kind of
namespaces:

1. Help avoid pollution of boost namespace.
2. Group libraries semantically affine.
3. Group libraries that will be likely used
in cooperation in many programs.

As for 1, I don't see any danger of namespace
pollution in Boost since libraries are accepted one by
one and these things are carefully checked before.
As for 3, I don't really think that a program
using an indexed_set will get a greater chance of
using also multi_array, for instance (on the
contraty, I guess the probability will be actually
less.)
2 is an aesthetical issue. I don't see any
practical benefit from having this kind of grouping.
One does not discover new libraries by way of
exploring the "sourrounding" namespaces, so to say.
If anything, the categorized lib index in Boost serves
this purpose well.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo