Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.

[Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 04:00:47PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 
> >Paolo, Chris, was the resolution to PR19433 the right one?
> >  
> >
> Yes definitely it is, because we are simply implementing the exact text
> of the current standard. DR 233 is in the *Open* status, a long way
> before "TC" or even "Ready". Why are you suspecting something strange
> going on?!?

I don't think anything strange is going on, I just wonder if it would be
better if we implemented the proposed resolution (as Dinkum already
does) because

1) we would still be conforming. Nothing in table 69 says you _have_ to
   take linear time if the hint isn't right.

2) we would still support code written to the old meaning of the hint.
   The traditional meaning, used by the HP and SGI implementations, was
   that insertion before the hint is constant. There could be lots of code
   written using that guarantee.  Our docs still describe that behaviour.

If there's a solution that supports traditional STL style, C++98 style
*and* the proposed C++0x style, shouldn't we use that?

Currently we only support the C++98 style, which might be standard, but
is arguably wrong.

jon

-- 
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten 
 your aims."
	- George Santayana