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

[Boris]

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: <http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/List.html>.
>
> Bleah.
>
> > 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.

Boris