Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-29 14:55:53
comment on the GCC bug ticket regarding this issue:
"The issue, in full generality, isn't trivial at all, there is
now a new discussion on the [C++ committee's] library reflector. I'm under the
impression that for C++0x we are not going to standardize the minimum load
factor suggested by Matt, seems much more likely that erase will be just
changed to return void, there is a growing consensus about that."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk