Re: [boost] safe::map

Subject: Re: [boost] safe::map
From: Karen Pease (meme_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-20 23:12:12

I could certainly remove the other iterator types if they only lead to
confusion.  I initially added them in as my personal needs called for a
circular map as well as a standard non-wrapping one, and so while I was
extending it with my needs I decided to just offer a range of iteration
types.  But again, if they're a problem they can be removed.  :)

As a side node, based on a request on the github page I've downgraded from
c++14 to c++11 so that it can work on older compilers.  Hopefully it won't
need to go more primitive than c++11  ;)

  - kv, Karen

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Louis Dionne <ldionne.2_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Karen Pease <karenpease <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Hi everyone - I'm new to boost-devel, and am a bit intimidated  ;)  I
> recently
> > finished a project and I don't know if the boost community would have any
> > interest in it, whether it's really "boost material" or not:
> >
> > https://github.com/KarenRei/safe-map
> >
> > [...]
>
> Karen,
>
> Thanks for reaching out to this list.
>
> This looks interesting, but I was completely bewildered by the different
> iteration types. Why did you decide to include all these iteration types,
> as opposed to only providing normal bidirectional traversal (like
> std::map)?
> Sometimes, having fewer options is better (because less confusing), and I
> felt like it was the case here. But I might have missed something, too.
>
> Regards,
> Louis Dionne
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>