Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-26 09:46:41
Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
> Getting back to this specific case, I think the two versions
> of erase()
> are different enough in performance to warrant providing both.
> Unfortunately, I don't know of a good alternate name for
> whichever one isn't named erase().
I'd suggest "remove" but that name is tainted by the behavior of the remove algorithm. "Discard?"
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk