# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3831 |
3 | Radewoosh | 3646 |
4 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
4 | Benq | 3620 |
6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
9 | gamegame | 3386 |
10 | ksun48 | 3373 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 164 |
1 | maomao90 | 164 |
3 | Um_nik | 163 |
4 | atcoder_official | 160 |
5 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
6 | awoo | 157 |
7 | adamant | 156 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
8 | nor | 154 |
10 | Dominater069 | 153 |
Name |
---|
Auto comment: topic has been translated by adamant (original revision, translated revision, compare)
It is a great proposal but I don't think that it will be a successful one. The standard is kept as clear and simple as possible so adding a lot of data structures might break this idea.
STL should be useful, not simple.
That's wrong on many levels. Every single piece of code in the C++ standard must be maintainable and possibly upgradable (see move semantics for example). It is very hard to maintain a large number of containers so don't expect any new data structure in the near future (there are much more useful containers like
dynarray
which are not ready yet so I don't expect to see tries any time soon)Absolutely agree!!!
The find_by_order() and order_of_key() should be added to set, map. I do not want to make a long declaration to have exactly the same set structure with only two more functionality.
And I don't want to spend precious processor time to update counters I'll never use if I don't use find-by-order or orderofkey