Re: [boost] [gsoc][RFC] Pointer Plus Bits

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc][RFC] Pointer Plus Bits
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-27 11:41:30

Stefan Strasser wrote:
>
> there is no reason to be strict with the naming here. even if it's
> technically two words,

That is a reason, though one can choose to discount it.

> there's boost::dynamic_bitset, std::bitset and maybe other examples.

There's also unordered_map, and the typical hash_map, (plus friends) but you're right that the standard containers generally compress the type names into a single word (as with multimap).  It's probably best to keep "bitfield."

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.