Caleb Epstein ha escrito:
On 11/14/05, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin@tid.es> wrote: I don't particularly like the name random_access. Do you have an alternative
proposal? Ideally, a name should be an adjective (like is already the case for "ordered", "sequenced", etc.) and capture the essential feature of the indices, namely random accessibility.
What aboust "clustered"? It seems a bit like a clustered index in SQL land, which implies a physical ordering to the data. Unless I'm totally off the mark.
"Clustered" seems to me a little far-fetched, since it has some connotations from DB world that do not really apply to random access indices: * DB tables usually can't have more than one clustered index. This is not the case with Boost.MultiIndex random access indices. * DB clustered indices are key-based, Boost.MultiIndex random access indices are not. Actually, in DB world "clustered" is an attribute of an index, much like "unique" is. This does not match well the situation in Boost.MultiIndex IMHO. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo