2 ms·
I've lost track of the thread, because I don't know what you are talking about. Who is saying what doesn't exist? The lower_bound you pointed to takes start/en
by eesmith 4y ago
I've lost track of the thread, because I don't know what you are talking about. Who is saying what doesn't exist?
The lower_bound you pointed to takes start/end iterators defining the partially-ordered range to examine.
The linked-to essay and the Wikipedia take array + size.
These are different APIs.
The latter - which is what this thread is about, IMO - is easier to implement because the sizes are always non-negative.
- froh 4y agorandom access iterators provide exactly the pointer into array semantics, with a difference type and jumping to a location in the range. https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/RandomAccessIterator https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/RandomAccessIter... they were conceived for c++'98 and transmogrified to a trait for c++20 the run time in GPs lower_bound link is log(n) for random access iterators and liner for non-random access.
- eesmith 4y agoYes. But how does that change my observation about the differences in the two APIs?