petermichaux at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 20:14:01 PST 2012
I expected a set would have an undefined iteration order to give
implementations the opportunity to make optimizations that maintaining
order would not allow.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Adam Shannon <adam at ashannon.us> wrote:
> I thought that Set wasn't going to even have insertion order as a
> "possible". The idea behind any Set (outside of ES even) is that it is
> just a collection of elements, unordered.
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 19:32, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>>> In the proposal, iterators for Set are listed as todo. If engine
>>> implementers have decided to start moving forward implementing Sets,
>>> then it would be great if they could get iteration going sooner than
>> Before getting too deep into iteration protocol for Sets (and Maps) there is a more fundamental issues: Will Set define a standard, implementation independent ordering of elements? If so, what is the basis for the ordering?
>> Is it iteration order? Is so this will add likely add space overhead to the internal representation of Set and Map and/or time overhead to insert/delete operations. Also, for specializations of Set such as Integer Sets insertion order may not be the most desirable iteration ordering.
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> Adam Shannon
> University of Northern Iowa
> Sophomore -- Computer Science B.S. & Mathematics
More information about the es-discuss