On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:56:02 +0200, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote
1) Dead code in index_node.hpp? ... This is not dead code. index_node_treampoline:index_node_impl is short for index_node_treampoline:public index_node_impl. My coding style is admiteddly a little too compact.
Ah, yes...thx. As an aside, I've had pretty good luck with a formatter called artistic style. http://astyle.sourceforge.net/ Although, I'll admit I haven't tried it on heavy template code. That said, it would clean up that spacing in a jiffy :-)
2) bidirectional_map
My first interest in this library started when it was just a bi- directionalmap. .... I like to see bidirectional_map as an official part of the library. A few reasons for this: ...
I don't think the bidirectional map I provide in the examples section is good enough for officialization (for one, it lacks operator[]). I only wrote it as
Well, sure. I personally don't care about operator[] because I don't even like using it with std::map. So for me it is ok to just document that it doesn't exist.
an example of use which I think will be common enough. IMHO a much more user-friendly bidirectional map could be developed based on indexed_set,
Agreed -- what more would you add to the example?
but we are talking probably of a separate library.
I don't see why. It would be a specifically targeted multi-index container built on the flexible core. To me, your library is now a family of collection types. Adding targeted easy to use collections in the library makes perfect sense.
Also, when I first introduced bimap to Boost a year ago, people expressed interest in an extensible approach, which bimap's rigid interface certainly did not provide.
Sure, but the flexibility almost always comes at the cost of user ease of use. No question about it in this case. I can't say to another programmer: go read the bimap doc page and use it do this... I now have to say. Go look at the examples. Hack out the macro stuff (if we are using a conformant compiler), create a bimap.hpp, write a little test suite so we can be sure it works like we expect, write up some docs to explain how this works for other users. Don't forget that operator[] doesn't work, etc... But I'm starting to whine now. I'm just pointing out that you have lost something for some of us...
As for the macro stuff, you probably shouldn't be concerned if the compiler you work with is reasonably conformant.
Sure, but my point is that as a user I'm suddenly exposed to the details. On any given day I might or might not be working with a conformant compiler. If bimap.hpp is part of the library I don't look at the header I just write my code.
3) Serialization support
I'd love to see Joaquín at least attempt this soon -- it would ... Good idea, if time permits I'll engage into the review and
... try to sketch some serialization support for indexed_set.
Great, thx.
4) Should the SGI/HP copyrights be included in the source files which are based off the stl_tree.h implementation?
I don't know. The original pieces of code (with lots of changes) are scattered across some five headers or so. Basically it is the rb-tree algorithms that I have retained. Maybe some of the licensing wizards here at the list can offer advice on this issue.
In reading the license in the docs, I don't think there is a problem with compatibility, but I believe it would be safer to also include this notation in the affected source -- even though the licenses sort of implies it isn't necessary. <usual disclaimer> I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. </usual disclaimer>
5) Naming
For the namespace/library name I suggest boost::multiindex_containers.
Rationale: -- The library provides several stl-like container types (set, list, map) -- hence the plural 'containers'. -- The containers all have multiple indexes -- hence multiindex.
Maybe boost::container::multi_index would please more people: it is as descriptive as your proposal, but (1) it is into boost::container and (2) avoids the abhorred "ii".
boost::container::multi_index works for the namespace. But to be clear, I'm expecting you are going to rename the entire library to Multi-Indexed Containers, right? Also, are you suggesting that I'm going to see BOOST_ROOT/libs/container/multi_index and BOOST_ROOT/boost/container/multi_index? This is what was just done with the string algorithms library (BOOST_ROOT/libs/algorithm/string/). While this structure makes perfect sense to me, it creates an inconsistency with existing container libraries like array and multi_array which are not under the .../container subtree. Personally, I'd like to see array, multi-array, and dynamic_bitset get moved under a .../container tree -- but it is alot of work. The other option would be to have paths like libs/multi_index_containers/, but now it doesn't match the namespace... Jeff