On 8/24/09, Jeffrey Hellrung <jhellrung@ucla.edu> wrote:
Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
Gottlob Frege escribió:
Any thoughts (from anyone?) on my comments about making flat_map's iterators stable? Then it would be a complete replacement to std::map. Tony
Making flat_xxx a template adaptor (like stack or similar) and using stable_vector as the underlying type would make flat_stable_vector a replacement for std::map.
Best,
Ion
I would prefer it as is, but I haven't had a need for iterator stability. I thought the point of a flat_map/flat_set was to be an as-lightweight-as-possible generic associative container, but still with reasonable (O(log n)) lookup time.
I think the point was to have a map that could be shared in interprocess memory. At least that was the original idea. But that could now be done with a std::map if we had stateful allocators.
Perhaps a policy-based approach is possible, or an entirely separate class, e.g., stable_flat_xxx?
If you had a stable one, which was this more maplike, should it be called flat_map, and the unstable on be renamed? To sorted_vector or something? By either implementing stableness or renaming, I'm trying to minimize potential misuse. I do understand that stableness isn't the most often used feature, but it might catch some by surprise. Probably not the developer that puts in the flat_map, but by the next one that comes by to use it. Tony
- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost