> I am keen that you keep doing what you're doing. And Zach with his open
> hash table, and everybody else.
>
> It's just that for me personally, I think C++ containers can be
> radically different from what we have right now, and in a game changing way.
>
> For example, in the open hash table I was recently working upon, we
> handle capacity expansion by keeping two tables, and spending no more
> than 1 microsecond moving items from the old table into the new table,
> per trade packet. There is no dynamic memory allocation, we exclusively
> use commit-on-first-write page allocation, which costs 400 - 1000 CPU
> cycles per page fault.

Granted - but I think this is off-topic. By a significant degree-
I'd be quite interested in a proposal of the type you're describing,
particularly one that did a good job of explaining the "what, where and
why" to slum-dog programmers, such as myself ;)

But in terms of my stuff, can we focus on whether or not SIMD is (a)
worth focussing on (this talk suggests it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8khWb-Bhhvs), (B) whether gather-scatter
SIMD is currently worth the time on most modern hardware and (C) whether
I should be exposing the internals of my container.