On 1/16/20 5:01 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/01/20 13:25 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/01/20 07:42 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/15/20 10:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/01/20 21:48 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/01/20 22:25 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/13/20 10
On 16/01/20 13:25 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/01/20 07:42 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/15/20 10:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/01/20 21:48 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/01/20 22:25 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/13/20 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/20
On 16/01/20 07:42 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/15/20 10:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/01/20 21:48 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/01/20 22:25 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/13/20 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/20 22:41 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
For the mul
On 1/15/20 10:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/01/20 21:48 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/01/20 22:25 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/13/20 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/20 22:41 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
For the multi-keys we could still avoid redundant comparison
On 15/01/20 21:48 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14/01/20 22:25 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/13/20 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/20 22:41 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
For the multi-keys we could still avoid redundant comparisons
when _Equal is just doing == on the key ty
On 14/01/20 22:25 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/13/20 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/20 22:41 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
For the multi-keys we could still avoid redundant comparisons when
_Equal is just doing == on the key type. On unordered_multiset we
could just avoids t
On 1/13/20 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/20 22:41 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
For the multi-keys we could still avoid redundant comparisons when
_Equal is just doing == on the key type. On unordered_multiset we
could just avoids the call to is_permuation and on the
unordered_mu
On 13/01/20 22:41 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
On 1/10/20 11:01 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10/01/20 18:54 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is my attempt to improve == operator.
There is a small optimization for the std::unordered_mutiXXX
containers but the main enhancement r
On 1/10/20 11:01 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10/01/20 18:54 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is my attempt to improve == operator.
There is a small optimization for the std::unordered_mutiXXX
containers but the main enhancement rely on some partial template
specialization of t
On 10/01/20 22:01 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10/01/20 18:54 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is my attempt to improve == operator.
There is a small optimization for the std::unordered_mutiXXX
containers but the main enhancement rely on some partial template
specialization
On 10/01/20 18:54 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is my attempt to improve == operator.
There is a small optimization for the std::unordered_mutiXXX
containers but the main enhancement rely on some partial template
specialization of the _Equality type. I limit it to usage of uno
Hi
Here is my attempt to improve == operator.
There is a small optimization for the std::unordered_mutiXXX
containers but the main enhancement rely on some partial template
specialization of the _Equality type. I limit it to usage of unordered
containers with std::equal_to to be sure
12 matches
Mail list logo