On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Taylor R Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:07:17 -0800 > From: Joe Marshall <[email protected]> > > Ignoring the issue of weak symbols for the moment, there is no need > to have strong references to the keys *unless* someone is depending > upon walking the hash table to find them. (and they shouldn't) > > I don't buy `they shouldn't' unless we're prepared to eliminate > HASH-TABLE/KEY-LIST, HASH-TABLE/DATUM-LIST, HASH-TABLE/FOR-EACH, &c., > and then rewrite everything that uses them to use a different > abstraction.
I don't think so. If a hash table is a mapping from key to value, then the key list need only contain those items that could conceivably be looked up. It *doesn't* need to contain keys that cannot appear as arguments to hash-table/get (a subtle difference) -- ~jrm _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
