From: =?windows-1252?Q?JOAQUIN_LOPEZ_MU=3FZ?= <joaquin@tid.es>
De: Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com>
From: =?windows-1252?Q?JOAQUIN_LOPEZ_MU=3FZ?= <joaquin@tid.es>
De: Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com>
[index_list naming] Now that I am, what about changing it to "indexes" or "indices" according to your preference? IOW, I don't think "list" needs to be part of the name at all. That name works fine regardless of whether it is elaborated.
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, now likely to be multi_index::index_list. Do I have strong objections to "index_list?" No. But I do think "indexes" is better (and shorter!).
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.
As there are already a number of libraries that could fit into container, and as it would offer some organizational benefit, I'm mildly in favor of it. The number of libraries in Boost will only grow and this will help in their organization. However, I don't see a significant benefit to it now. Therefore, in the 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.)
(btw, thanks for involving into this discussion)
You're welcome, and thank you for your efforts to bring multi_index_container (or whatever it will be called) to fruition. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;