On 4 July 2013 21:54, François Dumont wrote: > > And about the patch itself, is it ok ?
Yes, that latest patch is OK, thanks. It's made me think about the design a bit more though ... I've been a little uncomfortable for some time with the number of template parameters that are needed everywhere in hashtable_policy.h. In most cases they seem necessary, but does the _ReuseOrAllocNode template really need 10 template parameters? Couldn't it just be passed the relevant _Hashtable type? Unfortunately with the current design it does seem necessary to know the full _Hashtable type, even though the functionality only really depends on the allocator type (and node and value types, but they can be obtained from the allocator.) That means if I instantiate unordered_set<T, H, P, A> and unordered_set<T, H2, P2, A> the compiler has to instantiate two different specializations of _ReuseOrAllocNode (and other code in _Hashtable) even though it doesn't care about the two function objects, and the executable is larger. Would it be possible to separate _M_node_allocator, _M_allocate_node, _M_deallocate_nodes and _M_deallocate_node into a separate base class of _Hashtable, and have _ReuseOrAllocNode only depend on that? That would allow unordered_set<T, H, P, A> and unordered_set<T, H2, P2, A> to share more code.
