| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3657 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3638 |
| 4 | turmax | 3442 |
| 5 | tourist | 3380 |
| 6 | Um_nik | 3353 |
| 7 | strapple | 3350 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3346 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | maroonrk | 3310 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 144 |
| 4 | Um_nik | 144 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 135 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 10 | Proof_by_QED | 131 |
| 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
dynarraywhich 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