On 07/21/2010 01:18 PM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
I'd like to state that Boost.MultiIndex internal implementation is *not*
based on iterators, so the whole discussion iterators vs. ranges does
not impact Boost.MultiIndex memory usage in any manner.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Welcome, Joaquín! Good to see you here. Could you please provide a bit
more detail? Does Boost.MultiIndex use pointers? Thanks!
The implementation is based on nodes interlinked with pointers,
just as say your favorite std::set implementation.
[snip]
That's very illuminating, thanks for the explanation. So there are nodes
in fixed positions and they are wired in various ways as dictated by the
respective orderings. Very cool.
PS: I'd be delighted if some bold sould took the challenge of
porting Boost.MultiIndex to D. My collected reports show
that the lib is quite popular in C++, so having it in D could
be welcome. I can't program in D, but if someone decides to
go down this path I'd love to assist with discussions on
the design and internals.
That sounds great. I, too, think that multi_index is a very useful
structure. It should be quite easy to generalize the up-and-coming
RBTree implementation (Steve... :o)) into accepting multiple ordering
predicates. Since the number of predicates is available during
compilation, the Node structure should be easy to implement by using a
fixed-size array for the header.
Andrei
