Hello, On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 03:07:16 -0600 Zbigniew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, it would become infeasible to splice a pair into or out > of the list [an O(1) operation], given only a pointer into the middle > of the list, because you cannot update the counts of earlier list > elements. This would be "possible" with a doubly-linked list---but > insert and remove would now require an average of O(n) operations, to > update every count! I understand. Thanks for you comments, Zbigniew, Kon and John. I was just wondering if there could be some implementation trick to make length faster. > The structure you are looking for is a vector (Python and Perl "lists" > are actually vectors), not a linked list (Scheme list). As Kon > pointed out, length is fairly uncommon in Scheme, and heavy use may > indicate you're programming against the Scheme paradigm. Might I > suggest reading the beginning of SICP to develop the proper habits, if > you have not already. Actually it's not a question of habit (at least I hope so :-)). It just happened that I was comparing the performance of some basic Chicken functions against Python and the performance of length was a bit lower than what I was expecting. Best wishes, Mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
