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

From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jbms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-16 02:07:26

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> [snip]

>> Why not use an MPL sequence of indexes in the first place?

> Well, this has been previously discussed before. The rationale is that
> I'd like to isolate common users from MPL as much as possible. Imagine
> the tutorial somehow pointed to the MPL reference for a forward
> compile-time sequence: IMHO, many readers would scare away. Which
> percentage of *users* of Boost are acquainted with such a complex
> library as MPL? MPL is an extremely powerful library, but I honestly don't
> expect it to to be part of the common knowledge shared by the C++
> community.

But aren't you just effectively aliasing or reproducing mpl::list in
your "index_list"?  I do not see that as a very good solution.  If you
want to use a type users might be more familiar with, you could allow
them to use boost::tuple to specify the index types.

As I said in a previous message though, what I would really like to see
would be allowing specifying the indices directly as parameters to the
container template, as a convenience syntax.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard