Re^3: An irrational coding choice foundby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Mar 19, 2012 at 07:33 UTC||Need Help??|
Making the "simple" key smaller might be possible in many cases, but the calculation method to getting it to "smallish" will probably defeat the gain over hashes.
The subtraction of a simple constant makes almost no difference:
To me the most important reasons to use arrays are: 1) Data must stay in original order 2) Data is not guaranteed to be unique 3) The "target" API works only with lists/arrays
Of those, the first two are moot. If the data can be stored in an array, then it can also be stored in a hash whilst meeting both of those criteria.
That is, it is the keys of a hash that must be unique, and that is easily achieved by incrementing a integer variable as you build the hash. And once you've done that retrieval in insertion order is just a matter of iterating the keys.
For your third criteria, if the APIs don't accept hashes, then there is no choice.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.