David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:28 PM, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
This can easily lead to CCE without some extra checks.
I don't quite see your point of view. I figured that "put" methods only
return a value when they replace a previous value. If duplicates are
allowed, then put will never replace a value and always return null. If
duplicates are not allowed, then there will be 0 (null) or 1 (V) objects
to return.
ah, right, I was mixing both the value passed and the actual 'value' present in
node.
I don't see how a return from this can be useful unless something like
remove(K, null) removes all the values associated with K. In that case
returning AvlTree<V> might be more appropriate. On the other hand my
naive expectations would be that remove(K, null) would only remove
something is insert(K, null) had been called. If I wanted to remove all
the values associated with a K I'd want a method remove(K) and having
this return an AvlTree(V) seems more appropriate (this could be a
singleton if there is only one value).
the current impl removes the all the values associated with a key if
remove(K,null) is called
assuming that we don't allow null to be inserted by checking at a higher level
(ex. the XXXTable implementations)
But, yes this is certainly possible to have null values, provided the
comparators handle them properly.
Returning a singleton AvlTree<V> would be a overhead, but if this is something
really required will add it
thanks David.
Kiran Ayyagari
