From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-24 13:09:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CC71107.E6884B05@san.rr.com> From: Darren New X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community) References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CBAFFEE.2080708@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204171036.6f0a7394@posting.google.com> <3CBDD795.4060706@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204180800.44fac012@posting.google.com> <3CBF0341.8020406@mail.com> <4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com> <3CC1C6B3.6060306@telepath.com> <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com> <4519e058.0204220534.2eb33730@posting.go <3CC48F34.5A474E0F@boeing.com> <3CC49C50.485AE213@san.rr.com> <3CC4B5C0.4D16077C@acm.org> <3CC4E9DA.E02BE0DA@san.rr.com> <7vznzukhzf.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> <3CC5B161.C719C5D8@san.rr.com> <7vg01lwaku.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> <3CC6B932.75C468E1@san.rr.com> <7vbsc9w367.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> <7vlmbcvpbx.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:09:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1019678943 66.75.151.160 (Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:09:03 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:09:03 PDT Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23083 Date: 2002-04-24T20:09:03+00:00 List-Id: > Excellent idea, unless there is much overhead involved in the > streaming operation. But I suspect it's probably OK. That's probably a good way to work it if you don't have a user-defined hash function, or if the user doesn't want to create one. Since you have to hash the key on every lookup, this would seem to be a lot of overhead if you can avoid it. And of course you still have to ensure that two "equal" keys hash to equal values, implying that two equal keys have to stream out to the same sequence of bytes. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.