RE: [boost] Re: N1456 Hash table implementation

From: Wyss, Felix (FelixW_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 21:07:57

> > I think it would be better to mandate that resize()
> >   1) guarantees iterators remain valid
[Wyss, Felix] I would argue that resize() is semantically an invariant
operation on a hash table; it doesn't modify the content.  It's an
operation to adjust the memory consumption and lookup performance
tradeoff at runtime.  As a previous poster pointed out, the SGI
implementation guarantees that iterators remain valid.  

> >   2) provides the strong exception guarantee
[Wyss, Felix] Same here, resize() is a semantically invariant operation.
It's easy to implement a hash table that provides the strong exception
guarantee for resize() by caching the hash code.  This even increases
performance for types with expensive compares.  I thus dare asking: Why
not?

> 
> Why?
> 
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>