Date: 2000-01-11 23:13:56
Dave Abrahams writes:
> It looks quite good to me. One problem: it's going to be hard to satisfy the
> "amortized constant time swap" requirement for the array<> implementation
> we're thinking of, I think :(
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll change it to linear time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk