| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3611 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | strapple | 3515 |
| 6 | tourist | 3470 |
| 7 | Radewoosh | 3415 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3376 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3361 |
| 10 | XVIII | 3345 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 162 |
| 2 | adamant | 148 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 146 |
| 4 | Dominater069 | 143 |
| 5 | errorgorn | 141 |
| 6 | cry | 138 |
| 7 | Proof_by_QED | 136 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | chromate00 | 134 |
| 10 | soullless | 133 |
| 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