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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk