On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:12:19PM +0000, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
Pavol Droba <droba <at> topmail.sk> writes:
NAMESPACE * Proposal: boost::container::multi_index
[...]
I have just one remark about the namespace usage. IMHO it is an overkill to provide a special namespace for every container. I think, that putting this all containers into boost::container namespace is verbose enough.
There has been very similar discussion about the algorithm namespace (namely the string algorithm library). Current situation is that everything resides in boost::algorithm namespace and interface names are lifted to boost namespace. This model has been settled as a reasonable compromise.
It is worth to mention, that there are generaty more free stading names in algorithm libraries than in the container ones. So if the name-clashing problem is not here, I don't see it in container case.
[...]
I think indexed_set (or composite_container) cannot live without a namespace ot its own. There are many utility classes around the container with names like (to pick a few)
* tag * index * member * identity
These are *public* classes. Would you choose to have them in boost::container?
Ok, I see your point now. Still, I would prefer shallower namespace hierarchy if possible. Maybe renaming ig these *public* classes whould help. Or just putting these utilities in an extra namespace, keeping the main container class well accessible. Well, these are just crazy my ideas, but anyway, the issue is important enough to be worth of some discussion. Regards, Pavol