From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-06 06:10:38
> I know. :) (They were, however, good examples for the alternative
> structure.) Here are the problematic ones:
> is_adaptable_binary_function.hpp (32)
> is_adaptable_binary_predicate.hpp (33)
Do we need the "adaptable" bit? If yes, then how about:
Maybe not ideal, but as long as you are consistent it should be OK.
> is_hashed_associative_container.hpp (35) [*]
> is_multiple_associative_container.hpp (37)
> is_pair_associative_container.hpp (33)
> is_simple_associative_container.hpp (35)
> is_sorted_associative_container.hpp (35)
> is_unique_associative_container.hpp (35)
> [*] Ok, not standard yet, but used in the N1443 proposal.
> As you can see, it's mostly the associative containers that has a problem.
> Perhaps shorten the filename (and trait?) "associative" -> "assoc"? That
> keeps it just under the limit. Then what about the two first?
"assoc" sounds good to me.
BTW, don't get too hung up on names it could be a bicycle shed issue again
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk