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? Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo