<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 15, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; ">This is pretty ugly, but it allows the super class to change the<br>representation of these values, which will be key for doing<br>a SmallDenseMap.<br><br>Suggestions on better method structuring / naming are welcome, but keep<br>in mind that SmallDenseMap won't have an 'unsigned' member to expose<br>a reference to... =/<br></span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Do we have any use cases where a DenseMap would be better than a SmallDenseMap? It's hard to think of cases where std::vector is better than SmallVector.</div><div><br></div><div>It seems this could be a lot simpler if you didn't have to preserve the original DenseMap exactly.</div><div><br></div><div>/jakob</div><div><br></div></body></html>