From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-14 21:38:22
Larry Evans wrote:
> On 02/14/2005 06:48 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>
>> benchmarks would not be immediately necessary. Please see my
>> other post: "Fusion plan".
>
>
> I searched for "Fusion plan" in subject, but that showed nothing.
> Then I looked at all of your posts for the last month, but none
> looked promising.
>
> Could you give more details so I can find it?
I just posted it. You should see it by now. If not:
Here's what I am planning:
1) I intend to refactor fusion to allow different forms of
containers with varying characteristics. I plan to have:
a) vector
b) list
c) set
d) map
2) The unifying force is the (as usual): iterator
3) There will be intrinsic functions that work on specific
containers (e.g. cons for lists; thus having full backward
compatibility with old tuples).
4) As I intend to follow the MPL mold, I will follow MPL
naming convention (e.g. "at" instead of "get", vector
instead of tuple).
5) Provide a tuple TR1 interface on top of fusion.
6) Provide a backward compatible interface (for old tuples) on
top of fusion.
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Cheers,
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net