On 10/29/05 11:54 AM, Lawrence Sanbourne didst favor us with:
> I agree, there's no need for random access, and that's why I proposed
> a linked list. The extra space needed for the links is trivial; STL
> vectors would definitely use more memory. They also have O(1) access
> time, but this access time is likely to be slower than accessing array
> or a linked list that you're in the middle of traversing [both O(1) as
> well, but faster time-wise].
None of these considerations is significant in and of itself IMO. Before any
really useful discussion can take place we'd need to know how large you
anticipate this list of items to grow and how you'll use it. If we're
talking about 10 items, none of this is significant and I'd use the approach
that was easiest to implement. If If we're talking about 100,000 items, then
these issues become relevant and how you will build and use the list become
relevant factors in determining which approach is best. Most of my code has
to be prepared for large lists of FSRefs which I typically access in loops
or as a FILO stack, so I have all the code I need to use STL vectors and my
own handle-based equivalent. If you have linked list code already written to
do this and it meets your needs, by all means use it.
Larry
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Carbon-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/carbon-dev/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
