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

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>| 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.
>  
>
No, you are wrong. My argument was that most end users that often don't
pay much attention to the LWG in general, definitely don't expect to
find implemented a resolution in the *Open* status.

>| 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.
>  
>
This is absolutely exagerated. If the issue is so serious and "after"
hints are absolutely
unusable why the DR is still open after 5 years? Please.

>| 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.
>  
>
You don't understand "behind the scenes"?? "Making of"?? Yes, I consider
the the activity of the LWG "making of". Not many people buy the special
edition of a movie wrt the normal, cheaper one (would be time and
attention in our application of the metaphor). Not many people are
interested in the "making of", in general. I would say, a wild guess, 1
against 10.

Paolo.