Cromwell Enage wrote:
--- Johan Råde wrote:
"rank_tree" is not a good name. It focuses on the implementation.
rank_tree is fine for the name of the class.
What matters to the user is that it is a
1. sequential container with 2. O(log(n)) look-up and 3. O(log(n)) insertion
What's needed is a new Container concept that covers these requirements.
No. rank_tree is definitely not a good name. It is as if set had been named red_and_black_tree. There will be no ranks and no trees visible through the public interface of the class. The name of a class should reflect its interface and its observable behaviour, and not its implementation. Aside from this detail, I think this class is an excellent idea. If you need a sequential container with fast access and fast insertion, then there is no good option in STL and Boost today. I will use this class. --Johan Råde