I’d be more than happy to contribute to design discussions etc. Please feel free to add me.

My Email address is: matthews DOT andrew AT gmail DOT com

My current thinking is to provide the core collection implementations with sufficient functionality to introduce an arbitrary number of interceptors that can be used to layer additional functionality on the collections. I suspect we will also need to provide an introspection interface on the core collections to allow for example optimisation of generic algorithms. In the C5 collections a lot of the collection semantics are captured on the interfaces supported by collections and additionally on some properties. My gut feeling is that we must be able to that in a cleaner way that does not clutter the core collection API as much.

If you would be interested in reviewing/contributing to the design of the collections, I’d be more than happy to add you to the newly created nhive-development google group. That will be the right place to post and discuss ideas at this point in time. No strings attached, I’m pretty busy otherwise myself.

What are your priorities?

We are still in the design stage for NHive. Our intention is to create a new collection library. We will use the latest C5 library as departing point, but will not aim to maintain backward compatibility. Current thinking is to simplify the core collection classes and allow additional functionality to be layered on top/plugged in.

When it comes to iterators, I’d consider adopting the CSTL approach. Regarding LINQ, as long as we support IEnumerable wherever possible, the LINQ extension methods should work.

Regards,
Gerke.

That would be wonderful news! The two combined would be an awesome framework, and I would certainly adopt it. I’m not sure what the current status of CSTL is. I can’t help wondering about the following:

* how compatible are the two breeds of iterators in CSTL and C5?
* If you create whole new types of iterator, would you lose the ability to use the LINQ to objects extension methods, which will add another way to do generic methods…?

Either way, it would certainly be pleasant to put such collections to agressive use in some of my applications.

Andrew

Regards,
Gerke.

public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IReadableCollection<int> rc = null;
IReadableCollection.Position<int> foundPos = Algorithms<int>.find(rc.Begin, 10, null);

ISequence<int> s = null;
Algorithms<int>.copy(rc.Begin, rc.End, s.Begin);

ICollection<int> c = null;
Algorithms<int>.copyBackToFront(s.Begin, s.End, c.Begin);
}
}


public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IReadableCollection<int> rc = null;
IReadableCollection.Position<int> foundPos = Algorithms<int>.find(rc.Begin, 10, null);

ICollection<int> c = null;
Algorithms<int>.copyBackToFront(s.Begin, s.End, c.Begin);
}
}