It wasn't clear from my checkin message :-) ... I just removed the "btable" option. Binary tables are not useful, given our hash table implementation.
What features of a table are you looking for, which hash tables do not provide? Cheers, -g On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:15:30AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > yes, you *will* use a hash instead. any questions can be directed to > > > > Bubba. > > > > > > ????? A hash and a table are two different things and both are > > > useful. How do I insert data into a hash and iterate over it in the exact > > > same order? > > > > apr_table_t is a list, but we don't insert. Hashed tables can't be > > iterated. > > There needs to be something in between for some classes of data. > > Hmmm... What do you mean we don't insert into a table? There is an > apr_hash_next function to allow us to iterate over the hash table, but of > course the data is now out of order. > > > > I would really have appreciated if this change had been discussed at some > > > point before an entire type was just removed. > > > > Ack, although we aren't using it right -now-, I'm -0.5 on this change > > -0.5 from me too. We may not use it, but this API has been being talked > about since I joined this list over two years ago. By removing it I > believe we have taken a step backwards. :-( > > Ryan > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 406 29th St. > San Francisco, CA 94131 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
