[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Monotone-devel] Re: Re: using empty() instead of size()

From: Boris
Subject: [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: using empty() instead of size()
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:46:47 +0200
User-agent: Opera Mail/9.52 (Win32)

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:23:57 +0200, Zack Weinberg <address@hidden> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Bruce Stephens
<address@hidden> wrote:

Just because the standard says that doesn't mean that it's so in
implementations, of course.  For example size() in SGI's list may be
linear: <>.


The standard uses odd terminology (I think, anyway).  There's a table
in 23.1 showing the operations and complexities, and some of the
complexities are "constant", and some are "(Note A)".  This is
explained below the table: "Those entries marked ''(Note A)'' should
have constant complexity." I wonder if that's an RFC-style "should"?

It might be, yeah.  I saw that myself and wasn't sure what to make of it.

C++98 is all I've got, so I dunno if it's changed either.

In the latest working draft I find this:

Those entries marked "(Note A)" should have constant complexity. Those entries marked "(Note B)" have constant complexity [...]

Compared to the entries marked (Note B) I guess should have means they don't need to have constant complexity.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]