Re: [boost] [multi_index] intrusive multi_index poll for interest

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-20 14:35:31

----- Mensaje original -----
De: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Viernes, Enero 20, 2006 5:45 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] [multi_index] intrusive multi_index poll for 
interest

> Bruno Martínez <br1_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:52:22 -0200, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz  
> > <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, you have shown a realistic scenario where the feature
> >> is valuable, so I'm putting this into my todo list --probably
> >> I can have it in time for 1.34, but I'm very slow writing and 
> checking>> things :) Any suggestions about the name/syntax? 
> Something like:
> >>
> >> iterator iter_to(const value_type& x)const;
> >
> > iterator_from()?
> >
> > I don't know.  I'm spanish speaking too.
> 
>  position(const value_type& x) const;

position() would be a perfect fit except for one thing:
in the roadmapped ranked indices

(http://boost.org/libs/multi_index/doc/future_work.html#ranked_indices)

I will need another member function to return the
position ordinal of a given element (that is,
the inverse of operator[]), and for that "position"
seems also a good candidate. If we could find some
other name for this latter memfunction,
I think I'd adopt "position" for the former. 
 
> or if you are worried about "position" sounding like a verb,
> 
>  get_position(const value_type& x) const;
> 

"position" seems OK to me as the verb interpretation
doesn't look so obvious, but then again I'm not a
native English speaker --incidentally, those who proposed
empty() for STL containers didn't seem to have their
English well oiled that day, either :)

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo