joaquin@tid.es skrev:
Howard Hinnant escribió:
I do not have access to the code. I have no reason to doubt the report. I have not seen actual timings from tests run.
I'm not getting this. N2023 (allegedly) *proves* that singly linked unordered containers *can't* implement iterator erase(iterator) with O(1) complexity. So N2023 can be right or wrong (if there's some flaw in the proof), but if a committee member votes for NAD I think it's only fair to demand some evidence from him as to why N2023 is wrong. Do you agree so far with me?
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.
FYI, He uses doubly linked lists. -Thorsten