Apologies! I was, in point of fact, working on such a patch, but I think I've been convinced that it's a legitimate position for a package to take. (I'm also curious, Johann, about the approach you figured out that didn't cost a word per node!)
That said, I've been working with somewhat similar structures for my TrieMap package, and I hadn't honestly considered the possibility of having size run in anything but O(1). (When I was comparing benchmarks with bytestring-trie, I didn't realize for a few hours that all of my benchmarks called size, so O(W) operations were being benchmarked at O(n). That threw me off..) Louis Wasserman [email protected] http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Don Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > bos: > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Louis Wasserman > > <[1][email protected]> wrote: > > > > size takes O(n). That's just depressing. Really. > > > > That's rather thoughtless wording for some code that's (a) free (b) > faster > > than anything else currently available (c) in its very first release > and > > (d) available in source form for you to improve as you see fit. Just > > depressing. Really. > > Agreed. This is open source: patches or it stays at O(n). > > -- Don >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
