From: Jason House (jhouse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-24 11:57:14
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> That said, it is generally desireable that common functionality
> is provided through the same interface (for example,
> hash_set and std::set both being containers, the provide
> begin() and end() ).
You made good points why they could not have identical interfaces. But
then begin() and end() is a rather minimalist overlap of functionality.
Is there any reason for a set-like index and a hash-like interface to
differ in the random access function call? What about with a map-like
index?
I don't know how much can be unified, but it seems like it might be
wise to consider it before an index interface is selected. The
differences between std::map<int,foo> and std::vector<foo> tend to
bother me since they tend to fill a similar functionality niche,
different complexity guarantees, and incompatible interfaces. I really
am just trying to make sure that such headaches don't pop up in the use
of indexed_set... Especially for such simple motivations as changing
complexity guarantees.
> I'm not sure if this addresses your question. In case
> it doesn't, please tell me so.
I think you addressed my question pretty well. I think that I still
needed to clarify what I am thinking. I hope what I wrote above helps.
> PS. I'd appreciate if someone can run the test cases
> in MSVC++ 6.5 *release mode*. It works OK in my machine, but
> Pavel reports crashes for that configuration on his box,
> so I'd like to have a third opinion.
6.5? Which one is that? MSVC 6 with SP5 installed? I might be able to
help, but *after* the holiday season (ie. maybe in 2 weeks).
>
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
> Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>