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

From: Joaquín Mª López Muñoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-14 10:31:23

Thorsten Ottosen ha escrito:

>
> [...] index::list should be sufficient.

Still, I don't like "list" alone. If an using directive is in affect, then

using boost::multi_index;

multi_index_container
<
  employee,
  list<
    ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >,
    ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
  >
>

does not read so well, as it is not clear (IMHO) what list is supposed
to be introducing. Compare with:

multi_index_container
<
  employee,
  index_list<
    ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >,
    ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
  >
>

What do you think?

>
> I still think that namespace container would be wrong. The container's
> name will be long enough to be in namespace boost and everything that
> supports it's setup of indexes can be put in namespace index (or a struct
> index) and have index stripped
> from their name.
>

I think I agree with not using boost::container for now.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo