On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM, leppie <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Harvey" <[email protected]> > > > Okay, I'm confused, A hash value is an index into an array. If the > > hash value doesn't fit in a fixnum, then the array doesn't fit in memory, > > or even in the virtual address space (by a factor of 4 on a 32-bit > > machine). > > What am I missing here? > > > Something other than the most extreme naive implementation of a hashtable, > ever. :)
I'm with Brian - I haven't been following the "hash table" literature, but to the best of my knowledge its normal usage refers specifically to associations recorded in an array. Maybe the term has acquired a wider meaning - certainly R6RS does not retain this standard meaning - but I think it's hard to claim the standard definition of X is "the most extreme naive implementation of " X. It's up to the implementation to choose how it converts the hash value into > a meaningful index (or perhaps something else). > If both R6RS conformance and the extra bit is so important, why not add a special unsigned fixnum to your internal data types? Lynn
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
