"Rob Stewart" <stewart@sig.com> wrote in message news:200404131432.i3DEWa127359@entwistle.systems.susq.com...
From: =?windows-1252?Q?JOAQUIN_LOPEZ_MU=3FZ?= <joaquin@tid.es> [snip]
It does not look bad, actually. But I'm really trying to narrow the target down now. Do you have strong objections to index_list? Nobody else complained.
Seeing it in its elaborated form as suggested by Thorsten, I was troubled by the repetition of "index" in index::index_list,
yeah, that was a mistake :-) index::list should be sufficient.
Well, just for the record, what's your "vote" about pushing/not pushing into boost:container? It is not clear to me which side you're a supporter of. So far, noone has expressed any strong opinion on either option.
[snip]
spirit of XP, I suggest not putting it in the container namespace until there is enough justification to warrant refactoring all of the affected libraries. (That alone could justify a new Boost release when that time comes.)
I still think that namespace container would be wrong. The container's name will be long enough to be in namespace boost and everything that supports it's setup of indexes can be put in namespace index (or a struct index) and have index stripped from their name. br Thorsten