Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > I'm curious about the hash table. (info "(elisp) Hash Tables") says "For > smaller tables (a few tens of elements) alists may still be faster [than > hash tables]".
True, but then, both a small table and a small alist are very fast. OTOH, hash tables scale better. > For an Org document, might it not make more sense to use an alist for > this? It doesn't matter much. I'd still favor a hash-table since it's hard to predict an upper bound for include keywords in a document, but it's your call, really. I doubt the alist or hash table will be the bottleneck. > Or will the speed be regained when doing many includes from the > same document (since I'd check if a footnote is already in the table)? You would need to access the alist/hash table for each include keyword, not necessarily from the same document. > Also, since INCLUDE is expanded before info, should I just create a new > defvar holding the table during export? I guess that's the only way to > hold it in memory across several INCLUDE words. It should be in the scope of `org-export-expand-include-keyword', much like `file-prefix'. No need for a global variable. Regards,
