OpenEuphoria

1. New map routines

• Posted by Aku <akusaya at g??.net> Apr 20, 2008
• 564 views

I just committed new routines for map data structures.
The new include file is map.e
The new routines are map_new, map_put, map_get, map_size, map_remove, 
map_keys, and map_values.

http://rapideuphoria.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/rapideuphoria/trunk/doc/library.doc

The keys and values can be any object. The hash function is in pure Eu
(no asm codes), and it seems faster than other hashmap libraries in the
archives (need more tests, actually). 

Suggestions etc are welcome :)

3. Re: New map routines

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at c?wgar?com> Apr 20, 2008
• 548 views

I was looking at it, cool! Was the unit testing OK to work with? Also, 2
suggestions, please remember to update the relnotes.htx w/what you've added and
your name. We tend to bold keywords that will get peoples attention such as files
changed/added (map.e) and functions changed/added.

Also, I wonder if we should make the type name lower case instead of mixed as to
fit in with the other types, i.e. integer, atom, object not Integer Atom or
Object?

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com

5. Re: New map routines

• Posted by Aku <akusaya at g?x.ne?> Apr 20, 2008
• 568 views

Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> I was looking at it, cool! Was the unit testing OK to work with? Also, 2
> suggestions,
> please remember to update the relnotes.htx w/what you've added and your name.
> We tend to bold keywords that will get peoples attention such as files
> changed/added
> (map.e) and functions changed/added.
> 
> Also, I wonder if we should make the type name lower case instead of mixed as
> to fit in with the other types, i.e. integer, atom, object not Integer Atom
> or Object?

Thanks!

Yes, the unit testing is OK and quite simple to use. 
I have updated the relnotes just now.

Some 0.01 cents...
How about the object(x) proposal again that may return 0 for no value?
It is very useful for hashmap routines..

Now the hash_get function is used like:

object value
value = hash_get(map, key, -1)
if value = -1 then 
 -- not found
else 
 -- found
end if

With the new object function we can have

Now the hash_get function is used like:

object value
value = hash_get(map, key)
if not object(value) then 
 -- not found
else 
 -- found
end if

7. Re: New map routines

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cow?ar.?om> Apr 20, 2008
• 562 views

Aku wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > Also, I wonder if we should make the type name lower case instead of mixed
> > as
> > to fit in with the other types, i.e. integer, atom, object not Integer Atom
> > or Object?
> 
> I forgot to reply about this.
> I want to know how the others think about this new object type,
> should it be Map or map?
> 
> Maybe if we use "map" we cannot have any variable called "map" again
> and will break so many codes?

We are defining a new API as we go on. I do not think we should define the new
API based on possible variable names. I think a set standard and language
consistency are much more important. Changing a variable name is easy.

With the new release, I think no matter how hard we try, we are going to break
some peoples code. I think at all costs we should keep the language consistent.
Also, when naming variables, a variable name of map is really not a good
programming practice. Just as I would not create a variable name Integer. No one
does that because of an existing type of integer. On the inverse, you shouldn't
create a variable name of map with a type of Map. We see this often in simple OO
programming examples. But, it's not a good name nor a good example.

When I read through code, and I see a variable name called "map" I would ask,
ok, it's a map, but of what?

Therefore, to further my side, I especially think we should not design the new
interface based on possible bad naming schemes of variable names. I firmly
believe that keeping language consistency is of much more importance.

Now, this is not to say we should ignore the fact that we may break programs.
With useless changes, that would be a problem, for instance, we shouldn't
introduce a function named "i" which returns the index of a value in an array.
That would just be silly.

But, with Map, I think it really needs to be map. We can wait for what others
think as well, but again, Euphoria is a simple language and if we starting making
it inconsistent, we are going to ruin it.

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com