Thanks for the collaboration. You are right, that's what I mean by a deep list.
One usage of knowing the information is to tell whether the hash table is empty or not, Since a hash-empty? procedure is not provided. 在 2013-2-18，10:01，Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> 写道： > On 17 February 2013 22:15, Hengqing Hu <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know it's intentional or a bug, >> but now object->string returns something different. > > It was an intentional change. Previously you could not tell apart two > distinct hash tables that happened to have the same number of elements > and bucket size. Now you can, because the output includes an unique > object id. > >> >> My understanding of length and fold is the same for deep lists as for >> hash table. > > Interesting. By deep list do you mean a list that has lists as it's > elements, like: > > (define x '((1 2 3) (4 5 6))) > > or ..? > >> >> It's great you have provided a patch so a constant time way >> to know no of key/value bindings in a hash table could be more accessible.. > > Its not an operation fundamental to hash-tables (indeed, some > implementations can not determine this in constant time), and I think > that is the main reason for its absence. What do you use the > information for? > > Regards
