Subject: Re: [boost] [heap][formal review]
From: John Bytheway (jbytheway+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-13 17:49:04
On 13/06/11 17:54, Tim Blechmann wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced that Stability is an essential requirement, or
>> that the library's approach to the solution is adequate. I would have
>> preferred the library not attempt provide such a feature. The same
>> could be said for iterators.
> depending on the use case it is definitely a requirement ... i have seem many
> workarounds in real-world software, where the stability of non-stable priority
> queues need some ugly workarounds ...
To weigh in briefly, I have needed a stable priority queue on at least
one occasion, and achieved it through a rather tiresome and convoluted
method involving a heap of linked lists indexed by a hash table. I
would value this being moved into a library that has thought more
carefully about the best way to solve it.