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

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-14 12:25:45

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Joaqu=EDn=20M=AA=20L=F3pez=20Mu=F1oz?= <joaquin_at_[hidden]>
> 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?

Don't forget "indices" or "indexes" in lieu of "index_list."

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

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;