On 10/29/05, Laurence Harris <email@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
For my application, there will usually be no more than 3 FSRefs (!),
but I wanted to write this code so it would be reusable by me and
others.
> 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.
I don't have the code written already, but it wouldn't be very hard to
write it. I'm happy with the performance of CFMutableArray, though.
Larry
--
Larry Sanbourne
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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
