>> It would replace what is currently an array.
>
> It'd still be one afterwards.
> [...]
> extract/reinsert is actually O(1).
Hm, strange. I probably did not understood at all the heap structure
you're suggesting. No big deal.
> [...] Why would a heap as I've described it require that?
Hmmm... The heap does *not* require anything, the *balancing* requires
this property.
> [...] There's no "proved and heavily tested code" touched here.
I've prooved and tested heavily the submitted patch based on an array,
that you want to replace with some heap, so I think that my point stands.
Moreover, I do not see a clear benefit in changing the data structure.
>> So I would prefer to keep the code as is, that is pretty straightforward,
>> and wait for a strong incentive before doing anything fancier.
>
> I find the proposed code not particularly pretty, so I don't really buy
> the straightforwardness argument.
No big deal. From my point of view, the data structure change you're
suggesting does not bring significant value, so there is no good reason to
do it.
If you want to submit another patch, this is free software, please
proceed.
--
Fabien.
