This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
Paolo Carlini wrote:
>Then, you don't have my consensus. Because, if we implement that
>behavior we have additional complexity (not abstract complexity) in the
>code dealing with insertions, i.e., two comparisons (before and after)
>instead of one. Also, people following the standard in force may rightly
>assume that only one specific comparison is carried out before the full
>blown search.
>
Also notice that (as we learned recently) people actually use operators that
throw: the behavior when using such operators can be potentially completely
different if we follow the standard or implement something else.
Paolo.
- References:
- std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.