From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-24 04:52:21
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> Boost.Unordered should be a fast-track review. We're only looking at
> code, tests, and docs: the interface is fixed or we're talking to the
> wrong crowd.
This is a little pedantic, but the interface isn't entirely fixed. There
are a couple of cases where it is affected by active issues. First,
there's the behaviour of swap when allocators aren't equal, as described in:
Secondly, there's the return type of erase(const_iterator) and
erase(const_iterator, const_iterator). In the draft they return void but
Thorsten asked if I could change them to return an iterator, as
This has a small performance hit with small nodes, as erase has to
search for the next empty bucket to return the iterator. But seems like
a good idea to me.
These are small points, but should be included in the review. (I'll add
something to the documentation).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk