Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Do property_tree and program_options overlap?"

From: bwood (brass_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-30 18:49:29

This is a MIME encoded message.

--=_c8ec2df5c7467b6cf815390612de54e0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> You've been touting multi_index here as well.
>
>Not at all. If you follow my recent concern with multi_index design I 
>actually believe it's lacking.

I read those and was sympathetic to the terminology
arguments you made.  L?pez Mu?oz believes it is too late
to make those sort of changes.  I disagree with him on that, 
but it isn't clear enough yet to me what would be better
terminology.  I didn't follow the other matter you raised 
in those posts.  

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems B.MI's 
serialization forces you to receive a B.MI instance with the
same number of indices as was sent.  While on one level it is 
impressive that B.MI preserves the relative order of equal 
elements, it has a cost.  If you have a B.MI with 3 indices 
in a server and only need one or two indices in a
client, you have some work to do.  In order to accomplish 
this I think you would have to receive a B.MI with the same 
indices as was sent and then write code that copies the 
contents of that B.MI to either a simpler B.MI or an STL 
container.  Does the preservation of the relative order of 
elements matter more than this sort of flexibility?

Brian
www.webEbenezer.net
--=_c8ec2df5c7467b6cf815390612de54e0--