On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:26:19 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
I agree that a BinaryHeap built on top of a container may ultimately
affect the topology of the container, which makes it unlike e.g. Take or
Chain. I could choose to disallow that and simply require that
BinaryHeap always works on top of a range, not a container. But I think
it's useful to have the growing functionality, and I don't think that
makes BinaryHeap hopelessly confusing.
What about making a BinaryHeapRange and a BinaryHeapContainer (well, with
better names)?
Essentially, the container flavored heap would use a BinaryHeapRange for
its range type, and would supply the necessary functions for it to be a
container.
I admit not reading any code for BinaryHeap, so this might just be a
foolish suggestion...
-Steve
