[rust-dev] purely function red-black tree

Steve Jenson stevej at fruitless.org
Tue Dec 18 17:16:57 PST 2012

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Patrick Walton <pwalton at mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 12/15/12 4:38 PM, Steve Jenson wrote:
>> I could use advice here. Is it possible for me to write a single trait
>> that can be used by both users that want to use managed boxes and people
>> who wish otherwise? IOW, what is the best way to abstract away the @sign
>> in this trait?
> It depends on how you implement the red-black tree. With your current
> implementation, I think you're probably going to have to expose the GC to
> the user, because that implementation of red-black trees doesn't do manual
> memory management. There's no real way to abstract over methods of
> automatic storage reclamation in general (and adding such a mechanism would
> be pretty complex).
> If you're OK with having get() copy out the value instead of returning a
> reference to it, then you could avoid exposing the GC to the user, at the
> cost of copying every value you put in (which is not as bad as it sounds,
> since the cost of a copy of an @ box is practically zero). However, if you
> modify the algorithm to use unique pointers throughout, then your methods
> like get() can probably return a borrowed pointer instead.

I'll tackle this within the next few days, once I understand send_map
better. Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20121218/29d4dfbe/attachment.html>

More information about the Rust-dev mailing list