Re: [boost] Re: Re: [indexed_set] revised naming proposal
Hi Rob, ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> Fecha: Lunes, Abril 12, 2004 11:17 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] Re: Re: [indexed_set] revised naming proposal
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. [moving into boost::container]
Well, it's all about not wasting effort. Hopefully, some other boosters (and the authors of container libraries in Boost) will jump in and express themselves for a
That will be ideal. I wasn't paying attention, but has this been addressed in a separate thread with an appropriate subject in order to garner their involvement?
No. I don't feel like rising the noise level more than now by beginning a new thread. IMHO, it's unlikely that this will get any more attention (and it could be that it does not deserve it after all.) [philosophical discussion about convenience of 1st level namespaces] (excuse my snipping) 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. (btw, thanks for involving into this discussion) Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
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;
"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
Thorsten Ottosen ha escrito:
[...] index::list should be sufficient.
Still, I don't like "list" alone. If an using directive is in affect, then using boost::multi_index; multi_index_container < employee, list< ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >, ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
does not read so well, as it is not clear (IMHO) what list is supposed to be introducing. Compare with: multi_index_container < employee, index_list< ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >, ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
What do you think?
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.
I think I agree with not using boost::container for now. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Joaqu=EDn=20M=AA=20L=F3pez=20Mu=F1oz?= <joaquin@tid.es>
Thorsten Ottosen ha escrito:
[...] index::list should be sufficient.
Still, I don't like "list" alone. If an using directive is in affect, then
using boost::multi_index;
multi_index_container < employee, list< ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >, ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
does not read so well, as it is not clear (IMHO) what list is supposed to be introducing. Compare with:
multi_index_container < employee, index_list< ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >, ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
What do you think?
Don't forget "indices" or "indexes" in lieu of "index_list." multi_index_container < employee, indices< ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >, ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
-- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
"Rob Stewart" <stewart@sig.com> wrote in message news:200404141725.i3EHPjr08840@entwistle.systems.susq.com...
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Joaqu=EDn=20M=AA=20L=F3pez=20Mu=F1oz?= <joaquin@tid.es>
Thorsten Ottosen ha escrito: [snip] Don't forget "indices" or "indexes" in lieu of "index_list."
multi_index_container < employee, indices< ordered_unique<member<employee,string,&employee::name> >, ordered_non_unique<member<employee,int,&employee:age> >,
but then index::indices seems wierd :-) What about puttinh index_list together with multi_indexed_container in namespace boost? br Thorsten
participants (4)
-
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z -
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz
-
Rob Stewart -
Thorsten Ottosen