On Feb 20, 2005, at 12:57 PM, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
What strikes about the resolution is that it doesn't seem to address Bill Wade's concern: in a minimum overhead "classic" hash table implementation (one pointer per element + one pointer per bucket), iteration is not going to be amortized constant under low load conditions. This is in very strong disagreement with that the std requires about forward iterators. I think this cannot be just swept under the rug: if the committee is going to accept it, at least it should be noted somewhere.
<nod> I would favor a resolution which stated that complexity requirements for hash containers assume a perfect distribution with a load factor of 1. Complexities under other conditions could be undefined, or perhaps implementation defined. -Howard