I'd like to complain about that, too ;) Louis Wasserman wasserman.louis@gmail.com http://profiles.google.com/wasserman.louis On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Sterling Clover <s.clover@gmail.com>wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Louis Wasserman <wasserman.louis@gmail.com> wrote:
A couple thoughts: size takes O(n). That's just depressing. Really.
This applies to all the container types. We could support O(1) size at the cost of slowing down e.g lookup, insert, and delete a little bit. I haven't measure how much yet. Would it be worth it?
Getting a bit picky, but for the record, Data.Map and Data.Sequence provide O(1) size, and Data.HashTable I believe stores the information but doesn't expose it from its tiny API. That's not an argument either way for what a HashMap should do, however :-)
NB: Data.IntMap, which Data.HashMap is based on, actually only provides O(n) size.
-Edward