Re: [boost] [flat_set] When to sort?

Subject: Re: [boost] [flat_set] When to sort?
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-08 10:59:41

On 08/04/2017 10:54, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost wrote:
> El 08/04/2017 a las 0:28, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost escribió:
>> Committed to develop new experimental functions:
>>
>> class flat_map/set
>> {
>>    sequence_type extract_sequence();
>>    void adopt_sequence(sequence_type &&seq);
>>    void adopt_sequence(ordered_unique_range_t, sequence_type &&seq);
>> };
>
> Shouldn't you also provide
>
>   void adopt_sequence(unique_range_t, sequence_type &&seq);
>   void adopt_sequence(ordered_range_t, sequence_type &&seq);
>
> for flat_map/set?

It looks a bit asymmetric against multi[set/map] containers which only 
require ordered_unique (their own invariant). It's realistic that a user 
that orders the sequence externally does not want to / can't erase 
duplicates before calling the "risky" version of adopt_sequence?

I've modeled "adopt_sequence" constructors and "insert" members taking 
unique_ranges. In those cases flat_set/map only supports 
ordered_unique_range_t. We could add a new overload for all of them but 
I just want to make sure they are needed.

Best,

Ion