From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-20 09:01:00
Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> What's nonconformant about these checked iterators (apart from the
>>> warnings, which are annoying, but not nonconformant)?
>> They don't meet the complexity requirements (big-O) for iterators.
> I asked this question at the Microsoft forums and the answer was that
> release (checked) iterators are conformant, while debug iterators are
> not - http://tinyurl.com/jwgvv.
> I guess that if anyone thinks otherwise, MS people would be glad to
> here about it...
AFAICT, erasing a list node ends up being linear in the number of
checked iterators into the list rather than O(1), regardless of the
debug/release setting. Am I missing something?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk