[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Microlight (was Re: paving cowpaths with libraries)
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:10:25 +0200
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Dirk Laurie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Not quite what I meant, sorry. I mean the relationship should be like the
> standard string library: available as a dot-call for all tables (at the
> user's risk that it makes sense) and as a colon-call for Lists.
Ah, but the string notation comes from strings sharing a metatable.
I'd also feel uncomfortable importing the ml table functions into
table by default (but it's easy to do)
> I object to List because it suggests O(1) insertions and deletions.
Precisely my worry. We are not in Python land, and List has a
pre-existing well-defined meaning. I'm tending to Array. It's not just
interference from my own jargon 'sequence' but it's an awkward word,
> In the Set class I think #s can be implemented as O(1). I'll try to work up a proof-of-concept.
I'd be curious if that could be done and still keep the contents of
the set as key/value pairs.