Sterling Hughes wrote:
Really? I thought it was just the opposite, at least in the amortized case. Well, never mind.On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Branko [ISO-8859-2] E`ibej wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
OK! I'll propose the two things: 1. apr_btree to be able to do the range-based searches
Sounds useful. (I'd suggest implementing red-black trees, not AVL.)
why? avl is, too my knowledge, a faster algorithm for all intensive purposes (faster insertion, equivalent lookup)..
2. apr_shash to be able to sort the hash table.
Do you mean actually sort elements in the table by some key, or just make sure traversal is in the order of insertions? If the first, it's probably better to use a tree. If the second, then there should be a way to insert an element in a specific place in the traversal.
a hash is a random access data structure, i don't see any reason that in-place insertions and deletions should be allowed, unless of course you want to use it in place of a dlist.
What hw's proposing is *not* a hash table. He wants a structure with near-constant-time key-based lookup, and a well-defned traversal order.
which begs the question, why would you want to use a hash in place of a dlist ;)
Whenever you want fast access to anything but the head or tail.
-- Brane Čibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
