Matias Capeletto wrote:
(3) (from other thread) For bm (the above view) we have some options:
a) bm can be left without any special function and so force the user to write .left or .right to refer to it. b) bm can be the same as bm.left. This IMHO introduce an asymmetry to the interface. The left view became the more important than the right view.
Don't like this much.
c) bm can be used for something new. Give the user a new view of the mapping: a set of relations. This design is symmetric. It forces the user to write .left to refer to the std::map<X,Y> view but this is a good thing, because is documented in the code what view is being used. This option is more elegant and powerful that the other ones. Because it is a new view we can use the symmetric left/right notation for it members so the design is complete. If we use first and second, the above view could be confused with the left view.
Nod, we definitely want the set of relations view I think, the question is whether this is the view offered by the bimap, or whether you access it via a member, so we have: bimap.left - left map view bimap.right - right map view bimap.relation - relation set view. But otherwise no special members in bimap itself. In fact the more I think about this the more I like it, but I'd like to here what others think. John.