On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 20:14, Ben Craig <ben.craig_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > A "bundle" doesn't mean anything.
> It doesn't mean much, I'll agree on that.
>
> > My jokes about this being a British Colony
> > aside, that's not what the name means, it indeed means "a distinguishable
> > localized population within a species". New members of the population are
> > added, old ones go away. The current name describes what it is and what
> > operations (especially the population member
> > addition/removal) are frequently performed on it.
>
> I think that description applies as well to the various ordered and unordered containers as it does to the proposed container. New elements come, old elements go, and creating and destroying those elements is efficient for some measurement of efficiency. To undermine my own suggestion, those insertions and removals are also stable.
>
> The other big thing I don't like about the name colony is that this description is something that I wouldn't guess, it has to be explained.
>
> So, back to the name, can we find a name that tells people why they should use colony instead of one of the node based containers? "stable_" doesn't do the trick there. Fast insertion and deletion don't really help either. Fast iteration and mutable ordering seem to be the distinguishing factors here.

Well fine. Call it std::population. Then you don't need to guess that
description; it's in the name.
It's not like a *set or a *map because it doesn't require uniqueness,
and it's not like multi* because
it's not a map/set that happens to allow multiple equal values that
are grouped - the identical
twins can appear anywhere in the population.