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:
>I read your objections and hear you. For all pratical concerns I have
>raised, you opposed "a small fraction of the users pays attention".
>
>
A small fraction of the users want to see implemented *Open* DR, this is
my point.
>You raised "complexity", while at the same time you embrass the TR1
>which is not even approved yet and far more complex than this
>particular issue. Now, when the standard is changed, the complexity is
>going to vanish?
>
>
I have explained in my last message what I really meant by "complexity",
you are not getting my points about the implementation of insert itself,
and user expectations about it and about behavior with throwing operators.
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.