From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 15:49:15
At 11:37 2006-06-17, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > At 12:14 2006-06-15, John Maddock wrote:
> >>David Abrahams wrote:
> >> > a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe
> >> > s/carefully/seriously/?
> >> >
> >> > b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when
> >> > the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case.
> >>I missed (well forgot actually) that the compiler was non-comforming
> > "in that mode"
> > in which "mode" ??
>In the mode where std::vector<T>::iterator is "checked." The type
>has the right syntax and mostly the right semantics but doesn't meet
>the complexity requirements to be a conforming iterator.
I looked at the standard and I don't see anything other than "must be
constant" for the operators provided, hence the missing "complexity
column" from the tables. I understand they take much longer to
execute than the non checked ones, but I don't find any loops (which
would indicate an O(n) or worse) in <vector> .
All the conditional code seems to be in the same path and executed no
more often which makes it difficult to see how it changes big-O
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk