I don't see why I would use it over `std::deque`. It has all the same complexity properties, but better tested, included in stdlib, and supports complex objects. It even has OK cache locality, given it allocates data in large-ish blocks.

You should really include this in you summary table, because it'd have all the same values compared to shift-to-middle array.

And your benchmark confirm this: figure 3 does not show the raw data, but it looks like std::queue may be 8-10% slower on smaller data sizes, and 1-2% slower on larger data sizes. Such small and inconsistent differences do not indicate different O()-complexity, and likely very dependent on specific benchmark design.

Related: std::deque implementation details for various compilers: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230810-00/?p=10...