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 <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:
| 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
tr1 is not pointless at all in this discussion, since you're making
argument about non mandated implementation complexity.
| complexity in general, but complexity in the implementation of insert,
| number of comparisons, then added a remark about throwing comparisons
| and so on.
About the throw: it is very simple, if User think his operators shoud
throw willy-nilly, they will throw willy-nilly.
-- Gaby
- 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.
- Re: std::map and std::set based on AVL, not RB trees.