Hi, Knowing that Alex has stepped forward, I am interested in helping out in this matter as well if you think that will help. My experience in maintaining a C++ library can be seen at https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/tice
-- Best regards, Tadeus On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:50 PM Alexander Kulkov <adamant....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds fair to me. Well, I personally might be interested in providing > fixes and improvements for the code. I might even try to find some other > people in community to contribute. > > PBDS is very well-thought library which I admired since the moment I saw > it, and the possibility that it may completely go to waste kind of > disappoints me, so I might put considerable effort to save it if that's > possible. The major issue, though, is that I don't really know even how to > start since I'm completely new to libstdc++ and have little experience with > such huge projects. Any help and/or advice here in how I may contribute > would be much appreciated. > > вт, 23 июл. 2019 г. в 19:21, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>: > > > Sorry for the late reply that wasn't "tomorrow". > > > > On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 23:40, Alexander Kulkov wrote: > > > > > > Hi there! I hope, this message will go to where it's expected to go, > > since > > > I'm not really familiar with e-mail threads. > > > > > > I was the one who brought > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806 > > > issue about sub-optimal implementation of split function in pbds. The > > > reason why I did so is clearly described on this comment: > > > https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/10355?#comment-157883 > > > > > > So, a bit of story and context. Five years ago at codeforces.com > > > (competitive programming website) someone eventually pointed out that > > there > > > is order-statistics tree in SGI library. It turned out to be very useful > > in > > > competitions since it is quite common type of queries to count number of > > > elements less than k in set and unfortunately regular std::set doesn't > > > provide such possibility although it would be extremely useful in > > > competitions. > > > > > > I made two posts about pbds on codeforces to introduce them to community: > > > https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/11080 and > > > https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/13279. First one introduces > > structures in > > > general and second one describes how to modify them so they support > > custom > > > queries. Second one was not quite as popular, perhaps because it's not > > much > > > easier to comprehend and remember concept than simply write something > > like > > > cartesian tree on live contest. But the first one is pretty much alive, > > > most recent comment was only 8 days ago. > > > > > > There was also another post (https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/60737) > > > considering hash_map from pb_ds as a replacement for unordered_map since > > > hash_map clearly outperform unordered_map. This one is also quite popular > > > and well-known in competitive programming community. > > > > > > So speaking about "Do you actually use these containers?" I would say > > that > > > I often use tree_order_statistics_node_update in competitions, and in > > > general specifically tree_order_statistics_node_update and hash_map are > > > pretty popular in competitive programming community. > > > > > > Deprecating policy based data structures will deal much pain to some > > > competitors because problems in which it's possible to use pbds instead > > of > > > custom balanced binary trees occur quite often and so now we'll have to > > > implement bbst instead of using something out of the box. > > > > > > Not sure if you would consider this usage case as something "serious", > > but > > > well, I was asked, so I answered. > > > > Thanks for responding! > > > > I don't really care about this use case, sorry. If the programming > > competition community were providing fixes or improvements for this > > code I might be more inclined to keep supported it, but it seems like > > we're just carrying around a huge chunk of code because it saves > > people some time in some competitions. Presumably the competition code > > is not reused, so there's no backwards compatibility issue here > > either. > >
