From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-20 12:47:49
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Bellingham" <alan_at_[hidden]>
> Hmm, as I understand your suggestion, and applying it here, you'd not
> have the flag. Instead, you'd note size() when a sort occurs, and would
> compare that to size() to determine whether to sort. You'd then sort the
> range from that old size to the new size, and do the inplace_merge().
Not even. Well, that sounds like a nice approach, but I also want a way to
say "just put it here", and its up to me to make sure things are sorted
before the next lookup. The standard associative containers cause me lots of
grief by trying too hard to protect me from the low-level details.
It's not that I don't want a library to provide safe "always correct"
interfaces; I do. It should also be flexible enough to be used for new
"always correct" interfaces built on the same low-level components.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk