Boost logo

Boost :

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.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at