On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:32:41PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I think Stefan pointed out a "case 4" in the other part of the thread: > > ones where we really care not just about fast lookup, but actual > > iteration order. > > I had assumed that that was the whole point of this data structure. > Anything else that is using it for lookups should indeed use a hash > map instead, and I can take my share of blame for missing this kind of > thing in review.
Keep in mind we didn't have a decent generic hashmap for many years. So I think string-list got used in its place. > > I think I like the hashmap way, if the conversion isn't too painful. > > If we don't have any callers that actually need the sort-and-lookup > thing, then yay, let's get rid of it. But I don't actually think of > this as the hashmap way. It's the get-rid-of-the-unneeded-feature > way. > > In other words, *regardless* of what else we should do, we should > update any callers that want a hashmap to use a hashmap. Please go > ahead, even if it doesn't let us simplify the string list API at all. Great, I think we're on the same page. Thanks! -Peff
