In article <(E-Mail Removed) om>,

(E-Mail Removed) says...

[ ... ]

> Ok, I should have said: "You can't beat logarithmic complexity with the

> current standard library." (Hashes are part of TR1, however.) In any

> case, while hashes can certainly be helpful, their worst-case guarantee

> O(n) is obviously worse than logarithmic performance.
While the hash tables included in TR1 may have O(N) complexity in the

worst case, a hash table can be designed to provide logarithmic worst-

case complexity.

[ ... ]

> You can beat logarithmic complexity in average complexity but, as far

> as I know, not in worst-case complexity or with standard library

> functions.
That sounds reasonable to me.

--

Later,

Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.