From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-15 00:25:16
On 11/15/05, Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Re: capacity/reserve. I think it might be useful to include these methods
> and have them operate on the key array as you suggest. Your argument against
> them is that they are only used to ensure iterator validity. But wouldn't
> these methods also be useful in optimizing container load time, as they are
> for std::vector and friends? I know I always call "reserve" on a vector when
> I know how much data I'm going to load into it ahead of time.
Now that I actually read your entire email it appears that you decided to
support capacity/reserve in the implementation and the spec is out of date.
Sorry for the misunderstanding and not reading your email fully.
I don't particularly like the name random_access. Do you have an alternative
> proposal? Ideally, a name should be an adjective (like is already the case
> for "ordered", "sequenced", etc.) and capture the essential feature of the
> indices, namely random accessibility.
What aboust "clustered"? It seems a bit like a clustered index in SQL land,
which implies a physical ordering to the data. Unless I'm totally off the
-- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk