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.
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>| Ok, Gaby, you didn't really read my messages,
>
>I did. Not just because we have disagreement means that I did not
>read what you were writing.
>
>
No you did *not* because you mentioned for a second time the pointless
tr1 thing after my explanation that, by "complexity" I didn't mean
complexity in general, but complexity in the implementation of insert,
number of comparisons, then added a remark about throwing comparisons
and so on.
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.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.