On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:21 AM, joaquin@tid.es wrote:
Howard Hinnant escribió:
On Mar 18, 2010, at 3:35 AM, joaquin@tid.es wrote:
Now, it's not that whatever technique they reportedly have applied is a trivial one, since at least three industry-level implementations of unordered containers have the problem predicted by N2023. Or, maybe that member is using *doubly linked* unordered containers: In that case N2023 does not apply and iterator erase(iterator) can indeed be implemented in O(1), but then if 579 is as a consequence closed as NAD this is tantamount to stating that singly linked hash tables are not valid implementations of C++ unordered containers.
This is a good summary of the situation with the following added information: [...]
I sincerely hope that 579 is then reopened so that singly linked implementations of unordered associative containers are accepted back into the standard.
Issue 579 is still open: http://home.roadrunner.com/~hinnant/issue_review/lwg-active.html#579 How it will be closed is very much in debate.
I participate in the Spanish C++ committee and will route my opinion through our representative in JTC1/SC22/WG21.
Thank you, please do. Your participation through your national body representative is very important! -Howard