On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:07:54 -0600, David B. Held wrote > I'd say 6 or 7 people expressing interest is more than enough to justify > Boostifying the code at this stage.
I agree. Since you have written an article which clearly describes the concept and provides an example it seems to me that you should be able to as for preliminary review from interested parties before you boostify the documentation. > However, I would like to see > what your latest version looks like, and see if we can't perhaps > redesign some of the features that run afoul of non-standard C++. This would be a top priority because I would be surprised if a boost library is accepted requiring non-standard features. > Also, it looks like the early consensus is that multi-key/value > support is desired, so I think we should have a good look at your > implementation/design to see if it is general enough. While a few folks have asked for this, it is up to you if you really want to take on the additional burden. Submitting, going thru the review, porting and maintaining a boost library is a huge amount of effort. While I think a generic multi-key container would be really cool, it is up to you to accept that scope. I, for one, would rather see a good bi-directional map sooner rather than waiting for a more general solution. I honestly can't think of a case where I would have needed the more general solution and I there is always a complexity tradeoff. Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
