[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Priority Queues?
- From: "Wesley Smith" <wesley.hoke@...>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:59:26 +0200
Did you see that the LOOP library already has Priority Queues?
On 7/25/07, Geoff Leyland <email@example.com> wrote:
On 25/07/2007, at 5:07 PM, Jérôme Vuarand wrote:
> 2007/7/24, Geoff Leyland <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> One way I can imagine doing this at the moment is to create a table
>> in the registry and store the lua functions at indexes in that table,
>> and then store those indexes in the priority_queue. That way, Lua is
>> aware that I'm interested in those objects, and I have a way of
>> keeping hold of them. Popping to top off the priority queue will
>> also mean removing an element from the table, which I imagine will be
>> a little inefficient. Possibly more than I'd like, but I'll have to
> I think this is the right solution.
And I think certainly the one I try first, though I might just start
by doing it all in Lua to get an idea of what it looks like (I'm
particularly excited about using coroutines!)
> If your Lua objects are userdata instead of functions or tables, you
> can store them directly in the registry, with the userdata itself as
> value, and a lightuserdata pointing to the full userdata as the key.
> You can then store that lightuserdata in your priority_queue. This
> removes the need for an intermediate table, and it may be easier to
> manage than integers.
> This means that you will use the hashmap part of the table instead of
> the array part, but since your data structure is a queue it may end up
> being a sparse array and anyway use the hashmap of the table.
> That's just ideas to widen your perspectives, do not take it as an
> expert's advice ;-)
That's a good idea, though I think they probably won't be userdata,
though at the moment, I'm just trying to get my head around how it
might be done, so you never know.