Well, a quick experiment proves your point. I'm not sure why I didn't
take advantage of that earlier. There were a bunch of small
surprising issues that I recall making the code unpleasant, but I
can't recall the exact reasons. Given all the tests we have covering
this now, I think it's safe to create a parallel version that should
be cleaner and see if you/we can improve on this otherwise messy
creation.
Ian
On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
??>> while in my opinion it would be enough to do this:
??>>
??>> (cursor-pfirst c) => 1
??>> (cursor-pnext c) => 2
??>> (cursor-pnext c) => nil
IE> What if there are more than two values = 2? This will only get
the
IE> first one.
so you say that cursor-pnext is same as cursor-pnext-nodup?
i thought that it just iterates sequence regardless whether there are
duplicates or not -- just what we want.
the BDB documentation says this:
----
Otherwise, the cursor is moved to the next key/data pair of the
database,
and that pair is returned. In the presence of duplicate key values,
the
value of the key may not change.
----
looks like it means it works fine with duplicate keys, but wording is
vague..
_______________________________________________
elephant-devel site list
elephant-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
_______________________________________________
elephant-devel site list
elephant-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
