From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-24 04:52:21
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> Boost.Unordered should be a fast-track review. We're only looking at
> code, tests, and docs: the interface is fixed or we're talking to the
> wrong crowd.
This is a little pedantic, but the interface isn't entirely fixed. There
are a couple of cases where it is affected by active issues. First,
there's the behaviour of swap when allocators aren't equal, as described in:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2004/n1599.html
Secondly, there's the return type of erase(const_iterator) and
erase(const_iterator, const_iterator). In the draft they return void but
Thorsten asked if I could change them to return an iterator, as
described in:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1753.html#130
This has a small performance hit with small nodes, as erase has to
search for the next empty bucket to return the iterator. But seems like
a good idea to me.
These are small points, but should be included in the review. (I'll add
something to the documentation).
Daniel