Re: [boost] [indirect container] RFC on naming of library and classes

From: Joaquín Mª López Muñoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-16 08:34:54

Thorsten Ottosen ha escrito:

> Dear all,
>
> I will soon start to write some more documentation for the
> indirect container library (formerly called the smart container library).
> Before I start on that I would like to get a vote on the preferred naming
> of
>
> 1. the library itself
> 2. library classes
>
> Ad 1: library name:
> --------------------
>
> Boost.Indirect Cotainer was suggested by Joaquin. It sounds reasonable to me.
> I don't have any alternatives, but suggestions are welcome.

Maybe Boost Pointer Containers would also do, specially if you keep
the ptr_xxx names.

>
>
> Ad 2: library classes:
> ---------------------
>
> The library currently consists of the following major classes in namespace
> boost:
>
> ptr_array
> ptr_vector
> ptr_list
> ptr_deque
> ptr_set
> ptr_multiset
> ptr_map
> ptr_multimap
> ptr_sequence_adapter
> ptr_set_adapter
> ptr_multiset_adapter
> ptr_map_adapter
> ptr_multimap_adapter
>
> Should these names persist? Or should we go for something like
> indirect_array, indirect_vector etc?
>

If you plan to extend the lib as outlined in the "future work" section
to cope with pointer-like objects like shared_ptr (an maybe iterators?)
then indirect_xxx would fit better, though ptr_xxx is evocative enough.
Just my 2 cents, anyway.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo