Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] unordered_set::erase() complexity bug?
From: John Zwinck (jzwinck_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-30 17:42:34
Daniel James wrote:
> This is meant to be a short lived workaround, we shouldn't
> over-engineer it. A new type and a template method is pretty
> gratuitous. I prefer the simplest, least disruptive solution - adding
> a new method with a different name. In the future when the method is
> removed (it'll go through a deprecation process first) the resulting
> error messages will be simpler and the name of the function will be
> easily searched (both in code and for an explanation on the web).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk