Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?
From: Michel MORIN (mimomorin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-05 22:05:30

Phil Endecott wrote:
> Should Ion's proposed flat_set, flat_map etc. expose the underlying vector
> that they use as their implementation?

+1

Or, I would want `uncompared_push_back` (just filling the flat_* container
without sorting) and `sort` functions.

> Related to that: could the implementation type be a template parameter?
>  Example: could one implement a flat_set on top of a stable_vector?  (Is
> that useful?)  And/or: should flat_* actually be adaptors that take a
> reference to their underlying implementation?

+1

It would be nice to use stack-based container (e.g. auto_buffer)
as the underlying implementation of flat_* containers.

Regards,
Michel