On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote: | > | > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | 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? | > | | > | As I said, you are not limited to using an integer. You could use | > | any key which makes sense. | > | > In that case, can you remind me of your main objection to what I | > originally suggested? | | My objection was that the current implementation allows interrorgation | based not only on integer keys, but also w.r.t operation names. | Further functionality could be added to allow other indexing schemes | _without_ changing the underlying representation.
That is precisel where I disagree. The current representation forces uses of integer as index. And I'm back to my question: when you index the vtable with value 2, what is the meaning of value 2? You have not answer that question so far; except saying you are opposed to any change. | Global change to a hash would certainly cost us in execution time. Why does that cost more than what you have proposed so far? | I have not yet seen anything convincing me that a change is essential. I was looking more for feedback than convincing you -- I don't think I can convince you of anything. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
