From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-09 09:59:06
On 8/9/06, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Matias Capeletto wrote:
> > * 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?
> I don't follow, can you explain or link to the relevant part of the docs?
In the STL unique associative containers (like std::map), operator
first makes an insertion if
the key element was not in the container. In addition, the container
has no constraints in the data types, so it is an operation that never
We want to maintain a coherent behaviour between the extended mapping
framework and the quite established STL one-side-oriented one, and
that imply respecting in the best possible way each operation. For
example, an insertion in a map view of a bimap may failed because the
there are conflicts with the constraints from the other side. The
standard insertion returns false when it fails, so it is very straight
forward to extend it to the new framework.
operator on the other hand, is quite a challenge. There are several
possible ways to extend it. We (In fact, my mentor make me change my
original implementation) opted for the most conservative
implementation. When operator does not behaves exactly as the
original counterpart, an exception is thrown.
It is documented in the reference section. Here is the direct link:
> > * A big part of the library implementation is ContainerAdaptor.
> > Do you deem Boost.ContainerAdaptor worth eventually proposing to
> > Boost?
> Where is container_adapter described?
It is not yet documented.
Here is an extract of Boost.Bimap rationale section:
"The core of bimap will be obviously a multi_index_container. The
basic idea to confront the implementation of the bimap class is to use
iterator_adaptor to convert the iterators from Boost.MultiIndex to
the std::map and std::set behaviour. The map_view and the set_view can
be implemented directly using this new transformed iterators and a
wrapper around each index of the core container. However, there is a
hidden idiom here, that once coded will be very useful for other parts
of this library and Boost.MRU library. Following the ideas from
iterator_adaptor, Boost.Bimap views are implemented using a
container_adaptor. Basically there are several template classes (for
example map_adaptor and set_adaptor) that takes a std::map signature
conformant class and new iterators, and adapts the container so it now
use this iterators instead of the original ones. For example, if you
have a std::set<int*> you can build other container that behaves
exactly as a std::set<int> using set_adaptor and iterator_adaptor. The
use of this two tools together is very powerful. A container_adaptor
can take classes that do not fulfill all the requirements of the
adapted container. The new container must define these missing
You can browse ContainerAdaptor code from the Boost.Bimap doxygen
docs, here it is a direct link:
> If I ask for a bimap<list_of<A>, B> do I get std::list complexity guarentees
> when accessing bimap.left, or does it just look like a list, but not really
> behave like one?
You get the std::list complexity guarantees. To be fair you get a very
close approximation to it.
For example, insertion operations are affected by the other selected views.
The complexity of each operation of the library is documented in the
reference section of each set type specifiers. Here is a direct link
to the list_of reference:
> That aside, it looks like a very successful SOC to me, and to be a worthy
> addition to Boost. Very nice looking docs too BTW!
Thank you very much for the positive review :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk