From: Rich Sposato (rds_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-03 18:32:18
Gary Powell wrote:
> I'm interested. I ran into the same issues with std::set that you have
> and because of it, switched to a map when it wasn't really necessary.
> Regarding acceptance by boost... I'm interested and will take a look
> at the code.
The code works with the STL version for GCC, but does not play well
with other implementations of the STL. Later, I would like Boost to
adopt these classes, but right now, I am only asking if Boost members
are interested in the abilities these containers afford.
Some questions I want Boost to ask are:
1. Do you like the class names: flex_set, flex_map, flex_multiset, and
flex_multimap?
2. How can I implement the classes to not just compile and run with
multiple compilers, but also work with existing STL implementations?
(I am in the midst of making a separate version of these containers
to work with Microsoft's STL implementation. I much prefer making
only one version of these.)
3. Do you think I overlooked anything when I implemented these?
(One suggestion is writing the containers to use an equivalence
function in the comparator.)
Thanks,
Rich Sposato