From: bwood (brass_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-30 18:49:29
This is a MIME encoded message.
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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk