220 7686 <88d5dee3-143a-4e8c-9682-6ef597450ffe@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: euloanty@live.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Could we remove the size() method in the std::list? Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:21:22 -0800 (PST) Lines: 436 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <88d5dee3-143a-4e8c-9682-6ef597450ffe@isocpp.org> References: <9be1f793-a061-4193-8a91-eedc81fa703e@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1521_32689189.1384165282445" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384165283 11072 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2013 10:21:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: euloanty@live.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDPYX6PYRQNBBJG7QKKAKGQEFJUNE7I@isocpp.org Mon Nov 11 11:21:29 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ve0-f199.google.com ([209.85.128.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VfocY-0007AH-D6 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:21:26 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ve0-f199.google.com with SMTP id cz12sf2542147veb.6 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:21:25 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=xSbzdqnv0rRxhALYxjhcthW55RSVHLlkPZoi0a9A2J8=; b=lvoSr7faFQ/rLzXq8IFuGoHh0O0H9rbEhXqGvA82gBcE85QYK6791Bsnkh53P1wfky 5K4Kdt93LesJTxn64o9Lz0CrkWM9jLhOecwXKM5X+d/+F+Cl1ak7MxAlQ/mf0vz88bLB c8NcKapnFY6P1Isvur+7nUQgCcztfKQh54DYV9arVmVoh+9BGF3BMOXrAZf6sw/jPjE3 OmrPBnZAaaKg62wv5EpVPea+1u2x+E314rt2AkD3d+XhgUu/KwryV97RzTKkzhZJKYP/ PgCH6qHfQh1keqp21PYxu/GW9BrM8m6OcX11xKYObNZCFjeewoMO2XWUjUhxBXsgOOSn dnVA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnzdm2Mw7/yRaRfayUcIjXdEuy0mXZTYnb2tX9lEV4PsURlw2lTUpHnM65HiQTxzEjqODTZ X-Received: by 10.58.188.113 with SMTP id fz17mr9464773vec.26.1384165285550; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:21:25 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.36.7 with SMTP id m7ls2142285igj.21.gmail; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:21:24 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.127.210 with SMTP id ni18mr264605igb.17.1384165284002; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:21:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9be1f793-a061-4193-8a91-eedc81fa703e@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: euloanty@live.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:7686 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1521_32689189.1384165282445 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the std::list<> should be used as the fastest efficiency just as=20 std::forward_list<>. We should use standard containers (not the c-style=20 array, c-style string) to develop all the programs including an operating= =20 system. To calculate the size must bring more costs of time and space. Counting the size is very easy for a programmer. =20 list.push_back(3); ++listsize; =20 list.pop_back(3); --listsize; =20 listsize+=3Dstd::difference(list2.begin()+3,list2.end()); list.splice(list2.begin()+3,list2.end()); // this operation is O(1), it is= =20 very fast. =20 From this, we could get, counting the size is not a must of a double-linked= =20 list. =20 I oppose that std::vector<> is always the first chosen container. In many= =20 conditions, std::deque<> or std::forward_list<> is faster than a vector. I know the Microsoft std::deque<> is slow. So I replace the it using this: =20 // deque standard header #pragma once #include #ifndef BOOST_CONTAINER_DEQUE_HPP #define BOOST_CONTAINER_DEQUE_HPP #endif #ifndef _DEQUE_ #define _DEQUE_ #endif namespace std { using boost::container::deque; } =20 It is much faster than Microsoft std::deque. =20 From my point, C++ is now the fastest language in the world. In fact, on=20 the average, it is faster than C, for C++ can do all things that C can do. Of course, C is faster than Assembly. Assembly is faster than machine code. =20 We should use them to develop the OS. So all these redundant operations=20 should be deprecated or we should provide a new container to do it, for=20 example:=93std::fast_list<>=94,=94std::nosize_list<>=94. =20 =20 --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/. ------=_Part_1521_32689189.1384165282445 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think the std:= :list<> should be used as the fastest efficiency just as std::forward_list<>. We should use standard containers (not the c-style array, c-style string) to develop all = the programs including an operating system. To calculate the size must bring mo= re costs of time and space.

Counting the size is very easy for a programmer.

list.push_back(3);<= o:p>

++listsize;

lis= t.pop_back(3);

--listsize;<= /span>

&n= bsp;

= listsize+=3Dst= d::difference(list2.begin()+3,list2.end());<= /p>

list.spli= ce(list2.begin()+3,list2.end()); // this operation is O(1), it is very fast.<= /p>

From this, = we could get, counting the size is not a must of a double-linked list.

=

I oppose that std::vector<&= gt; is always the first chosen container. In many conditions, std::deque<> or std::forward_list<> is faster than a vector.<= /span>

I know the Microsoft st= d::deque<> is slow. So I replace the it using this:

// deque standard header

#= pragma once

#include<boost\container\deque.hpp>

#ifndef BOOST_CONT= AINER_DEQUE_HPP

#define BOOST_CONTAINER_DEQUE_HPP<= /span>

#endif

#ifndef _DEQUE_=

#endif

namespace std

{

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; using boost::container::deque;

}

It is much faster than Microsoft std= ::deque.

From my point, C++ is now the fastest language in the world. In fact, on the average, it is faster than C, for C+= + can do all things that C can do.

Of course, C is faster than Assembly. Assembly is faster than machine code.

We should use them to develo= p the OS. So all these redundant operations should be deprecated or we should provide a new container to do it, for example:=93std::fast_list<>=94,=94std::nosize= _list<>=94.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_1521_32689189.1384165282445-- .