Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As I see from following code excerpt from g_hash_table_resize():
>
> for (i = 0; i < hash_table->size; i++)
> for (node = hash_table->nodes[i]; node; node = next)
> {
> next = node->next;
>
> hash_val = (* hash_table->hash_func) (node->key) % new_size;
>
> node->next = new_nodes[hash_val];
> new_nodes[hash_val] = node;
> }
> order of entries in the appropriate chained list is not preserved while
> resizing the table. All entries in the list are linked to the head of the list
> one after another. So one can even say that the chained list is reversed.
>
> My questions:
> 1) Am I right with my view of the matter ?
> If the first question is answered with "yes"
> 1a) Can violation of order lead to some unpleasant consequencies
> for application programmer supposing some particular order of elements
> in chained list?
> 1b) Should probably the notice be made in source code that the order is not
> preserved?
I think you are right but a hash table by definition doesn't allow the
developer to make any assumptions about the order of elements. Or, in
other words, the order of elements in a hash table is absolutely
undeterministic. Any code that assumes anything about the order of
elements is broken.
Salut, Sven
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
