Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey)
- From: Tim Hill <drtimhill@...>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:48:21 -0700
As i said previously, the actual cost was so small i was unable to measure it ... Certainly it was less than .001%
--Tim
On Oct 6, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>> I think I prefer my approach, which had a very small incremental overhead at inserts (so was n * O(1)), but O(1) behavior for #.
>
> But this implies a cost for all uses and users. Not everyone needs or uses #.
> We prefer that cost be paid by those who need it.
>
- References:
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Philipp Janda
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Tim Hill
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Coda Highland
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Tim Hill
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Dirk Laurie
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Tim Hill
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Philipp Janda
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Tim Hill
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Philipp Janda
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Tim Hill
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo