dsimcha Wrote: > If anyone can think of any more, please let me know. Also, just thought of > this > now: I wonder if it would make sense to use some polymorphism tricks (AA > operations are slow enough that an extra pointer dereference or virtual > function > call isn't going to make or break their performance) to allow implementations > to > be automatically and dynamically changed depending on some of the attributes > listed above.
This is not necessarily true. If you are hammering a map of int to int, function call overhead will matter a great deal and you would like the compiler to be able to inline it. Size will also matter for huge AA tables. On the other hand, perhaps you're willing to say that built-in AA's will not be suitable for every case. > For example, maybe binary trees are fastest for small N. (Hypothetical, > haven't > tested it.) Obviously for sufficiently large N hash tables will be fastest. > We > could create an abstract AA type that automatically switches from binary > trees to > hash tables when it makes sense, make this the default builtin AA, and expose > both > of the underlying implementations in std.containers for when the user wants > more > control over the details rather than DWIM. One thing I think is important is to codify the interface to the AA implementation, so that files built with different compilers could be linked together. I'd also like to see a way to allow the user to implement a custom AA for some uses and still be able take advantage of the nice syntactic sugar the language provides.
