8:08 PM, "Vadim Stadnik" wrote:
Is there an alternative of not integrating advanced data structures into STL?
Why do they need to be put "into STL"? Why can't they exist in addition to it, or alongside it?
Augmented trees are non-standard due to different performance guarantees.
They're non-standard because they're not in the standard.
A more reasonable and practical approach to STL would be to provide a wide set of interchangeable containers and data structures with different performance guarantees and allow programmers to make decisions about the most suitable containers for specific applications.
That's exactly what the STL is. The STL is about iterators and algorithms and concepts, not a fixed set of predefined containers. You've claimed the STL makes your containers "illegal" which is an odd claim that I can't agree with. Extending the STL with alternative containers is not just acceptable, I'm pretty sure it was intended by Stepanov et al. If your containers don't meet the complexity requirements of an Associative Container as defined in the standard that's fine, just don't claim it is an Associative Container and there shouldn't be a problem, surely. I don't understand why you think there are objections to non-standard containers. The containers in the standard are not suitable for all situations and are not the only choices, if there's a more suitable non-standard container then using it makes sense. This doesn't put the STL "under pressure", it proves its value, because existing algorithms work with both standard and non-standard containers if they model the required concepts.