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

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

| 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.

You said:
   sense, but, after *5* years is not making progress and only a small
   fraction of the users pays attention to the resolutions of the commitee,

And I asked:
   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?

Now, which part is wrong?

| >| 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.

And I ask again tha very question I asked earlier: You, Paolo, what do
you believe it is *useful* for to follow the current wording which is
questionable?  What arguments are you going to oppose to moving this
issue at the next meeting, which is in two weeks?  Are you going to
say that if after 5 years, it is still open it must serious and we
should leave it in open status? 

| >| 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"??

Obviously, I understand every word you used in isolation.  But I guess
you did not mean me understand them in isolation but the idea you
wanted to convey by assembling them.  Do you think that is an
unreasonable assumption on my part?

Assuming, not, what I said is that I do not get the idea and I was
hoping for clarification and explanation, not exclamations about
whether I understood the words in isolation.

| 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.

That is an interesting story but last time I checked LWG is not
Hollywood nor DreamWorks, so I guess your analogy might need further
elaborations and connection to having a sane and useful behaviour for
the insert(), which is the issue at hand. 

-- Gaby