Guile Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: table vs hash-table
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
<says, in a rather round about way, ;)
that RScheme's "hash-table"s are called "table"s>
Yes, and Dylan uses "table" as well. The logical progression from
"hash-table" to just "table" is that my latest fury of testing involved
much monkeying about with the REPL; I basically got tired of typing
"hash-" a jillion times over.
> (make-table test-fn hash-fn) => table
> Read access:
> (table-lookup table key) => value(1)
> Write access:
> (table-insert! table key value) => prev-value
> (table-remove! table key) => value
> (table-size table) => integer
wow, I never really looked at RScheme's table oriented procedures. I have
all of those verbatim, but "make-table" comes in four flavors:
"make-table[vqx]?", of which only "make-tablex" accepts more than zero
arguments: (make-tablex user-equal? user-hasher)
The fact is that, e.g. calling "scm_equal_p" internally is much faster
than "scm_apply(user_equalp, equalp_args, SCM_EOL)" so the table
(define mytable (make-table))
is a good deal faster (~20-30%, at insertion/lookup/deletion, YMMV) than
(define mytable (make-tablex equal? hasher))
> (key-sequence table) => list
> (value-sequence table) => list
I think a general "table->list" is more flexible.
> (table-for-each table proc)
> Where proc takes 3 arguments: hash-code, key and value
Why on earth expose the user to the "hash-code"? In case the keys are
substantially complex objects? Also, if I may quote a wise man:
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi wrote:
> "map" and "for-each" are standard fare for functional
> languages. Think of "table-map" as a procedure object
> oriented method; so the procedure "pair-transformer"
> belongs in front.
original author of
"The $ICPyramid Scheme"
PS: I'll be on vacation for a week, so no more posts/replies from me
until I get back. Bye bye, Guile.
Guile Home |
Main Index |