On Friday 11 September 2009 10:39:14 Samuel Lebeau wrote: > Hi, > > I think it's indeed a good feature to discuss for 2.0. > I've been working on this too and had quite reasonable performance > when using a hash function that avoids collision. > The simplest implementation consists in storing array of [key, value] > tuples indexed by `key.toString()` in a vanilla object. > > i.e. : > hash.set(true, value1); > hash.set("true", value2); > is stored as: > { "true": [ [true, value1], ["true", value2] ] } > > Custom classes should override their `toString` method to be > efficiently stored in such a structure, otherwise fetching a value > would be as slow as a `Array#find` call. > Having real hashes allows to implement sets too.
Would it be reasonable to to look for a hashcode() method which, if present, is used in preference to toString()? In most cases I could write a hashcode implementation that runs faster and is more evenly distributed than a human- readable toString. Yep, this is Java-esque but that doesn't *always* equal evil! -- Jim my wiki ajaxification thing: http://wikizzle.org my blog: http://jimhigson.blogspot.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---