Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ISAM?
From the RDBMS world, a kind of index I think, or something along
those lines. MySQL for example has a type of table called MyISAM.
Index Sequential Access Method
Invented by IBM in the '60s, provides fast random
JtUO == Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JtUO Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ISAM?
From the RDBMS world, a kind of index I think, or something along
JtUO those lines. MySQL for example has a type of table called MyISAM.
it predates dbms stuff. it stands
David Green wrote:
That's true. But it's got me thinking about the connection between
arrays and associative arrays. In fact, the user doesn't need to know
that a hash is implemented with a hash table, and an array isn't;
and nothing stops you from using numbers as hash keys.
I believe Lua
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:47:29PM -0600, David Green wrote:
: On 2004/9/06, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Another possibility is that .[] always forces the normal view of an
: array as 0-based, and if you want non-0-based arrays you have to use
: the .{} interface instead, on the assumption that strange
Larry Wall wrote:
David Green wrote:
: And if you restrict your hash to numeric keys, Perl could notice and
: optimise it into an array. (Or integer keys, or positive integers, or
: a consecutive range of positive ints)
What exactly do you mean by could notice? The point about the
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:16:50PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Funny you should mention that, especially considering the (relatively)
: recent discussion of revamping sort, and noting that providing an
: ordering for a hash would essentially be the same as providing the hash
: with a default
On 2004/9/06, Larry Wall wrote:
Another possibility is that .[] always forces the normal view of an
array as 0-based, and if you want non-0-based arrays you have to use
the .{} interface instead, on the assumption that strange subscripts
are more like hash keys than ranges of integers.
That's
On 2004/9/10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Green) wrote:
If we consider a generic data structure type (which may or may not be
optimised under the hood for integral indices), then why shouldn't {} be
the index-by-name interface, and [] the index-by-ordinal interface?
(Does that mean [$x] is just a
