MSDN > Home page del forum > Visual C++ Language > Time complexity of debug/checked iterators
Formula una domandaFormula una domanda
 

Con rispostaTime complexity of debug/checked iterators

  • domenica 18 giugno 2006 20.24Yuval Ronen Medaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utente
     

    Hi.

    I've heard that the C++ iterators in Visual Studio 2005 (checked iterators and debug iterators), do not meet to time complexity (big-O) specifications required by the C++ standard. I tried to find some documentation about it, but found nothing. Is there some paper describing this nonconformance, or maybe I'm wrong and the iterators are fully confomant?

    Thanks,
    Yuval

Risposte

  • lunedì 19 giugno 2006 20.41Jonathan Caves - MSFTModeratoreMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utente
     Con risposta

    Hi: I passed your question on to Bill Plauger who is the author of the C++ Standard Library that ships with Visual C++. Here is his response.

    "MS tried pretty hard to ensure that checked iterators were reasonably

    fast and, more importantly, had proper time complexity. Debug iterators also

    meet time complexity requirements, but the algorithms that use them (in the

    container member functions and the headers <algorithm> and <numeric>) don't.

    It's a fine point, perhaps, but an important one."

     

Tutte le risposte

  • lunedì 19 giugno 2006 20.41Jonathan Caves - MSFTModeratoreMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utente
     Con risposta

    Hi: I passed your question on to Bill Plauger who is the author of the C++ Standard Library that ships with Visual C++. Here is his response.

    "MS tried pretty hard to ensure that checked iterators were reasonably

    fast and, more importantly, had proper time complexity. Debug iterators also

    meet time complexity requirements, but the algorithms that use them (in the

    container member functions and the headers <algorithm> and <numeric>) don't.

    It's a fine point, perhaps, but an important one."

     

  • lunedì 19 giugno 2006 22.15Yuval Ronen Medaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utente
     

    Thanks for the answer.

    When you say "MS tried pretty hard to ensure that checked iterators ... had proper time complexity", do you mean "tried and succeeded", or "tried and failed"? I couldn't quite figure it out from the answer...

    And I really think that adding a similar explanation to the relevant MSDN pages is a good idea...

  • martedì 20 giugno 2006 0.02Jonathan Caves - MSFTModeratoreMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utenteMedaglie utente
     
    We mean "Tried and succeeded". Of course if you have examples of cases where this is not the case we'd love to hear about them.