Re: [boost] Boost.Bimap - Informal Review Request

From: Wang Weiwei (wwwang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-09 03:13:25

Hello Matias Capeletto,

The library is exactly what I was finding several days ago.
The first impression it gives me is that it's quite well documented.

Thanks.
Max

>Hello,
>
>Boost.Bimap, my SoC project is ready to confront the list.
>The project is being mentored by Joaquín López Muñoz. I want
>to publicly thank him.
>
>With Boost.Bimap you can create associative containers where
>both types can be used as key. You can think a bimap<X,Y> as
>a merge of a std::map<X,Y>  and a std::map<Y,X>. The learning
>curve of bimap is almost zero if you know how to use standard
>containers.
>
>The original project that encompasses the creation of a one to
>one bidirectional map has been extended into a framework that
>extends the standard mapping scheme. A bimap is a very flexible
>and powerful container, but the interface of the library allows
>a user to use it out of the box.
>
>The project information, docs and sources can be found here:
>http://cablemodem.fibertel.com.ar/mcape/oss/projects/mc_projects/boost_projects/boost_bimap.html

>
>I will be very pleased if you can make some spare time to review
>the interface, design, implementation and documentation of this
>library and comment on it.
>Because it is better to go clean from the beginning, these are
>some of the questions that will surely rise a discussion.
>
>* Do you like the usage interface?
>
>* In relation with Boost.MultiIndex, Do you think that it is
>  worth to have a bidirectional map library in Boost, that trades
>  generality for a better specialized user interface?
>  (Because this library was encouraged by the boost mentors the
>  answer will surely be yes, but it is a nice discussion to have)
>
>* Do you like the extended mapping framework?
>  Do you think it is intuitive for someone with a stl background?
>
>* What do you think of the design of operator[]?
>  Is there a better way to be coherent with the stl that does not imply
>  throwing exceptions?
>
>* What is your evaluation of the implementation?
>  I am very interested in your reaction to the zero-overhead achieved
>  by the almost-standard mutant_relation class, and the standard
>  compliant label that this library acquires by including the
>  standard_relation class.
>  A big part of the library implementation is ContainerAdaptor.
>  Do you deem Boost.ContainerAdaptor worth eventually proposing to
>  Boost?
>
>Looking forward to getting your feedback,
>
>Matias Capeletto
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost