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

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| >This is getting, ahem, interesting. By which measure do come to that
| >appreciation? And compare to that which proportion read the 98 and
| >2003 standards?
| >  
| >
| This is really a *side* observation, based on my personal, limited
| experience.

It may be a side observation, but it was an argument you made against
having a decent behaviour; thus side or I believe it would be
instructive to get other the propostion too.

| Frankly, I can confirm it, in particular if we add to the
| standard in force proper its "popularization" in widespread books. I'm
| ready to concede that I'm wrong, anyway, if that makes both me and you

This is a matter of being "wrong".  What I was looking for, as
repeated in previous messages, is what is it good for, apart literal
reading of the standard that does not make anything useful I can see.
It is not a matter of you or me be wrong, it is a matter of how
usefulness the thing is.

| more proud about the resonance of our work, which personally, I consider
| instead, largely "behind the scenes" (is it right english? I'm trying to
| translate in english the meaning: important work, fundamental for the
| eventual success of an endeavour, that actually most people ignore, if
| they pay attention only to the final result. Basically, what you can see
| in the "making of" DVD of your favorite movie ;)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

-- Gaby