On 4/10/04 5:13 PM, "JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" <joaquin@tid.es> wrote: [SNIP]
NAMESPACE * Proposal: boost::multi_index. This differs from the previous proposal in which boost::container is not used; rationale: resulting qualified ids would be too long, which would force most users to use namespace aliases (not a good thing, this has been discused before in connection with Boost.Filesystem) or apply using directives. Another reason is that a good deal of preexisting Boost containers don't live in boost::container and it does not seem such a migration will ever take place. [TRUNCATE]
But a lot of containers were made before the initiative for sub-namespaces. Some library has to volunteer to be the first of a new namespace. Also, isn't "multi_index" longer than "container" (unless you were going to add an inner sub-namespace, which probably would be too much)? Would any other type besides your current ones ever qualify to go into a "multi_index" namespace? We should limit the number of exclusive namespaces (unless the library is ridiculously huge, like Regex or Spirit). -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com