On 1/31/2010 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
What about just supporting out-of-line keys? If somebody wanted the key to be part of what they were iterating, they could still have the object contain the key.a. 3.1.3: do we really need in-line + out-of-line keys? Besides the concept-count increase, we wonder whether out-of-line keys would cause trouble to generic libraries, as the values for the keys wouldn't be part of the values iterated when doing a "foreach" over the table.Certainly it is a matter of prioritizing among various requirements. Out-of-line keys enable people to store simple persistent hash maps. I think it would be wrong to require that data be always stored as objects. A library can always elide the availability of out-of-line keys if that poses a problem to its users.
With that said, wouldn't a persistent hash map be better done in local or session storage? I really think we should drop one of these concepts. I don't presently have a strong opinion on which.
Cheers, Shawn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
