6 Aug
2011
6 Aug
'11
2:05 a.m.
Phil Endecott wrote:
Should Ion's proposed flat_set, flat_map etc. expose the underlying vector that they use as their implementation?
+1 Or, I would want `uncompared_push_back` (just filling the flat_* container without sorting) and `sort` functions.
Related to that: could the implementation type be a template parameter? Example: could one implement a flat_set on top of a stable_vector? (Is that useful?) And/or: should flat_* actually be adaptors that take a reference to their underlying implementation?
+1 It would be nice to use stack-based container (e.g. auto_buffer) as the underlying implementation of flat_* containers. Regards, Michel