On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andy Fingerhut < andy_finger...@alum.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Not to say this ought to be done, but would it be possible to have no > 'edit' field *at all* for persistent data structures (not even a null > reference), and only an edit field at the "root" data structure of a > transient (none of the children would have one, only the root), and > preserve O(1) transient/persistent! calls? The problem is when you have several calls to transient/persistent! You have to be able to tell transient nodes owned by the current transient processing from older transient nodes left in place by previous calls to persistent!. (and these transient nodes can be shared!) One could have a set of nodes owned by the current transient but it would incur some bookkeeping to not retain a reference to a reclaimable node. I don't know if there's another way to do that. But even if edit remains in all of them, I'm wondering whether it > could be maintained that only the root node has a non-null edit field, > while that data structure is transient. Why do you focus on these AtomicReferences? If you contrast pre-transient vectors and actual vectors you'll see that the overhead due to instance of PersistentVector$Node is far more important. Christophe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
