[boost] Re: [indirect container] RFC on naming of library andclasses

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

In some sense it seems like we're trying to cram two different classes into one. The indirect behavior could be provided by one (or three) containers of the form

I'm starting to agree.

template< class Sequence > indirect_sequence;

template< class Set > indirect_set;

template< class Map > indirect_map;

This might belong in a different library.

VTL, perhaps. If indirection is not really the unifying theme, perhaps you should use the name Boost.ManagedContainer, which I think was suggested at some point. ('ManagingContainer' might be more correct, but doesn't sound good.) Jonathan