Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote: | > | > | > I guess what I trying to get at is what are the benefits of those | > | > additional indirections over simple, hash table representation. | > | | > | I would imagine that the vast number of lookups would suffice with an | > | integer index. Tiny fraction would require higher level keys. | > | > Lookup with integer index is OK when you have all information at the | > same place and at the same time and have a way to enforce its | > semantics. Currently, Spad is such that one needs to have all | > the information when constructing the vtable but there is no means | > to enforce consistency. Going to a world with "extend" makes | > the problem even more accute. | | If the vtable can be interrogated with a variety of keys, allowing | useful mapping of elements, I dont see how a hash is any more | flexible. Perhaps you could provide an example?
Did I say "more flexible"? When you have an array and you index it with value 2, what does "2" means? [...] | > | I dont think of the integer index as having anything to do with the | > | order of declarations. | > | > Please elaborate on its semantics then. | | Nothing fancy. Its just a key, no more, no less. Sorry, "nothing fancy" is not an executable semantics. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
