I expect to do this later tonight or tomorrow.
Erik
On Mar 11, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:Yes, I saw it. But is there a reason not to just expose HashSet given that it is the data structure that is most efficient? I bought into Kevin's arguments that it made sense to just expose HashSet.
Just the general principal that one shouldn't expose more of the implementation than one must. I can imagine faster things than a HashSet for this, e.g., a well-coded letter tree (trie) could be a bit faster, since it would only touch each character in the key once. But it's not a big deal, perhaps not worth fixing at this point.
I proposed a solution that both respected this concern (yours, as I recall) while at the same time avoiding copying. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation. We can easily hide the implementation, avoid copying, and use the most efficient implementation internally. If you no longer care about hiding the implementation, then I guess this is moot. Before we started this exercise the implementation was exposed, so things have gotten no worse, only better. But they could have gotten just a little bit better yet!
Cheers,
Doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
