On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 09:36, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@gmx.de> wrote: > Am 10.03.2010 00:22, schrieb Martin Buchholz: >> >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 15:11, Ulf Zibis<ulf.zi...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Can you explain the mystery about "+ 2" ? >>> >> >> It's exactly the same as the old resizing behavior. > > In detail I meant, if you have any idea, why the original designers could > have chosen the "+1". > The code would be smarter, if ommited, + would serve the algorithm-loved > arrays of [base-2-] "round" sizes.
I bet what happened is that the +2 is necessary for an initial capacity of 0. It turns out that the current implementation disallows this, so it it possible to simply double the size, but I am not going to change it now. On the other hand, you could consider it a feature that very small arrays should grow more rapidly than a factor of two. Martin
