From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-11 16:21:29
Matthew Austern wrote on 1/11/2001 3:40 PM
<snip terrific post>
Thanks for the great outline of slist design options.
I am tending towards agreeing with you on slist. The whole point of this
thing is to save space; otherwise you would use list. So I favor the 1
word overhead design. Unfortunately for me, this is not what I currently
have coded in the Metrowerks lib (3 words overhead, O(1) size). And I
would like to just toss the O(N) insert/erase stuff too.
I looked at the "iterators point to previous nodes" design a couple years
ago. One thing that worried me was invalidating an outstanding iterator
by erasing the element before it. So I don't suggest that route either.
>For example, I'm using a vector<slist> for my hashtables.
I got scared off of this by the possibility that client code might
instantiate a non-zero-sized allocator (which then adds a multiple of
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk