Hello again,
Actually, I need to retract what I said before. Here is what I think
is actually going on, and it means that the current code is correct.
min_size_index will usually be 0, which means the table can shrink
down to the minimum hash table size (31). The only case it won't be 0
is if the
Hi Noah!
Noah Lavine writes:
> I started looking into implementing this, and I ran into something
> strange that I'd like clarification on. Am I correct in saying that
> currently, hash tables can only shrink by one size index when they are
> rehashed?
Yes, your analysis looks correct to me. W
Hello,
I started looking into implementing this, and I ran into something
strange that I'd like clarification on. Am I correct in saying that
currently, hash tables can only shrink by one size index when they are
rehashed?
I think this because of hashtab.c, line 293. This is a part of
scm_i_rehas
Hello,
Currently the symbol table takes up twice as much memory as it needs to,
because it is a hash table instead of a set. (The difference being that
the buckets in a set don't need to be pairs.)
We don't actually have a good set data type implementation, and I'm sure
people have opinions about
