From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-28 00:35:49
On 2/27/07, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
> > Matias Capeletto wrote:
> > Nod, we definitely want the set of relations view I think, the question is
> > whether this is the view offered by the bimap, or whether you access it via
> > a member, so we have:
> > bimap.left - left map view
> > bimap.right - right map view
> > bimap.relation - relation set view.
> > But otherwise no special members in bimap itself. In fact the more I think
> > about this the more I like it, but I'd like to here what others think.
> I like that you have to say
What are the reasons for this change?
(If it is changed I think we should call it bimap.above)
I like the above view because the set of relations is handy (and
better suited) for general not directed task such as insertion (it is
more efficient in it than in the side views), iteration, questions as
size or empty. Why not to make it easily accessible?
If you want to know the size and there is not such thing as the
relation view, what side would you choose? bimap.left.size()? What is
special about it?
bimap.size() is IMO a better way to express in the code your intention.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk