Paul A Bristow <boost <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces <at> lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces <at> lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Vozenilek
[...]
| 2. library specific names that won't fit into boost | namespace should be in "multiindex" namespace.
The 'ii' looks a bit un-english.
I would use a hyphen - as I am sure would Lynn Truss of "Eats, Shoots and Leaves' fame. (I felt this about the documentation too)
So how about multi_index? Also consistent with "multi_container" where a _ is used?
This is supposed to be a brainstorming thread, so allow me to dissent here :) Lacking a solid English language intuition, I often use Google to try to find "best uses": "multiindex" yields 20,300 hits, while "multi index" only produces 15,400 results. Note that "multi index" includes "multi-index" as well as other variants, so the case for "multiindex" seems to be even stronger than the raw figures show. OTOH, "multi-indexing" seems far more common than "multiindexing". Maybe we could stick with boost::multiindex and change "multiindexing" with "multi-indexing" in the text? multi_container seems to me awkward if compared to std::multimap. Why not multicontainer? Admiteddly, the "multi" prefixes do not mean the same in both cases, which could lead to confusion. Have you had a chance to take a look at the review notes? Some other alternatives are proposed there. I particularly like the boost::mix proposal, though others hate it. [...]
Unique is really unique.
Is there _really_ a clash with STL usage?
Yep. The following using namespace boost::indexed_sets; using namespace std; will raise the problem as soon as you declare an unique regular index. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo