Re: [boost][multi_index][hash][rfc] Hashed indices preview +Boost.Hash

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-20 13:49:00

On Feb 20, 2005, at 12:57 PM, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:

> What strikes about the resolution is that it doesn't seem to
> address Bill Wade's concern: in a minimum overhead "classic"
> hash table implementation (one pointer per element + one pointer
> per bucket), iteration is not going to be amortized constant under
> low load conditions.
> This is in very strong disagreement with that
> the std requires about forward iterators. I think this
> cannot be just swept under the rug: if the committee is going
> to accept it, at least it should be noted somewhere.

<nod>  I would favor a resolution which stated that complexity 
requirements for hash containers assume a perfect distribution with a 
load factor of 1.  Complexities under other conditions could be 
undefined, or perhaps implementation defined.

-Howard