Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin <at> tid.es> writes:
INDEX NAMES * Proposal: "unique" and "non_unique" changed to "ordered_unique" and "ordered_non_unique". * Rationale: No one opposed and some liked it. Solves the clashing with std::unique. Extends nicely to hashed indices (unordered_unique etc.) It is more descriptive. In favor: Gary, Dave. Rob dislikes the unique/non_unique suffix, but alternatives do not look better IMHO.
I don't know that there is a significant chance of a clash between the two 'unique's, since it seems they will be used in different contexts. The std::unique will be used in procedural body code, while the boost::container::unique will be used in the (complex) declaration of types. I think it would be a rare situtation to have 'using std;' statement in the same context where a type was being declared with a 'using boost::container;' statement in force... Also, disambiguation with 'std::' is both concise and familiar. Is the symmetry between 'ordered_unique' and 'unordered_unique' worth expanding the length of the former for? Matt