Subject: Re: [geometry] Rtree interface and translator
From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-26 09:06:04
I'm personally all for option 2, as it is something I had proposed at some
point. It feels much more natural to me, and more aligned with our usual
traits-based approach. I understand it may prevent users from specifying
different behaviors (i.e. different translators) for the same type, but I
consider that an edge case and there are workarounds.
As for option 4, I see the analogy but I would argue that in the STL you
don't really need a map if you have non-indexable values to store. You'll
simply make them indexable (i.e. define operator<()) to use them in a set.
A map is more for when the key can't be derived from the value at all.
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net