|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-18 07:42:35
From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]>
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > Summary of my position:
> >
> > * The "append" that, well, appends, should be retained under
> > its current name. (I can definitely live without its current
> > push_back behavior.)
> >
> > * I see good arguments against providing a "push_back."
>
> I see good arguments against providing a 'push_back' on a container for
> which it is not an O(1) operation. I don't see any good arguments against
> providing it for the containers that _do_ satisfy these complexity
> requirements.
We are in agreement then.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk