On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> In general this will be fast enough because we expect small lists, but > I'm not sure that the minor convenience is worth the worst-case > behavior. The convenience is not minor - the original API is not something that should be published at all (i.e. it should be a private method). c.deletepositions(list-of-positions-to-delete) is something you can understand in a heartbeart. This should be good enough for now. If it ever proves to be a problem, it can be optimized. One optimization could me sorting positions by depth and only comparing a position to "deeper" positions (because a position can only be ancestor of a position with bigger depth). Lexical sorting of the positions in general can give us linear speed - if we have positions 1,1,3 1,1,3,2 1,2,12,2 We will see that a position can only be ancestor of the positions directly following it in lexically sorted order. But that's something that can be done later. > > Edward > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "leo-editor" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en. > > -- Ville M. Vainio @@ Forum Nokia -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
