Raoul Gough <RaoulGough@[...].uk>  wrote:
>  "Joel de Guzman" <djowel@[...].uk> writes:

>  Well, my concern is to do with the complexity of the support - it
>  seems to require hooks throughout all of the code that modifies the
>  container. Maybe it would be possible to create a "container proxy"
>  that emulates the vector interface, and use:
>  
>  indexing_suite <container_proxy <std::vector<MyType> > >
>  
>  Thus encapsulating the proxy code. I think this would localize the
>  code much better, if it is possible to do.

A possibility, yes, nice idea.

>  Another concern about this - have you considered cases where C++ code
>  accesses the raw container (i.e. without going via the indexing
>  suite)? e.g.
>  
>      val = c[i]
>      cxx_function(c)
>      val == c[i]  # ??
>  
>  where cxx_function might (from C++) insert something into the
>  container. If I understand correctly, doing an insertion via the
>  indexing suite would notify the proxy when it needs to update its
>  index. I think that means that raw C++ code that modifies the
>  container would cause problems.

Yes, I am aware of that. That's a caveat. Before, the indexing_suite 
goes public, I have to provide a notification function that one needs 
to call in such cases. Right now, I am not sure about its interface.

>  So what do you think of the idea of providing a proxy-container-
>  wrapper, instead of integrating the proxy support directly into the
>  indexing suite? C++ code would then be aware (and have direct access
>  to) the wrapped container, and it might significantly simplify the
>  internals of the indexing suite.

Looks like a good idea. Feel free to try it out. I'm all for further refactoring.

Cheers,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net


_______________________________________________
C++-sig mailing list
C++-sig@[...].org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/c++-sig