On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> I'm also in favour of a regular Map and Set. Also a dense List (i.e., what we
> might have otherwise called an Array :(.) However, the history of oo class
> libraries shows collection libraries to be a tarpit, so I'm unwilling to take
> the lead on this issue. If someone else would like to, so long as they keep
> it bloody simple (i.e., not like Java, Smalltalk, or STL), that'd be great.
> Even the E collections <http://erights.org/elang/collect/tables.html>
> <http://erights.org/javadoc/org/erights/e/elib/tables/EMap.html>, where I
> could make them as simple as I wished, got way too complicated -- more
> complicated than I would find acceptable.
>
> Great designers of extraordinarily simple expressive APIs, please step
> forward!
Ideally TC39 should not standardize or design anything not already proven and
popular (if not dominant) in the field. The problem is no one can make
practicaly O(1) collections without Object.hashcode and Object.identity.
Say we add hashcode and identity. Then we'll have to wait a while, Could we
bootstrap Set, Map, and WeakMap and call it enough? I think so.
"Dense List" could be added but implementations are optimizing for dense arrays
already. I think this one is too close to Array to be worth it, but without a
detailed design that's just my gut reaction. FWIW.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
