[Haskell-cafe] implementing python-style dictionary in Haskell
Alberto G. Corona
agocorona at gmail.com
Tue Nov 18 07:41:49 EST 2008
The most balanced case may be the insertion of a element in the middle of a
list, but this is far worst than to insert an element in a particular branch
of a tree ( it needs an average of list-lenght/2 element creations while in
a tree needs only (average-branch-length)/2)
I refer to Maps, because Hashtables, in the IO monad, are mutable. by the
way let map2= map1 takes 0 bytes of memory And both do not share side
effects, while creating two copies of a hastable to avoid side effects
between them needs 2 * size.
2008/11/18 Tillmann Rendel <rendel at daimi.au.dk>
> Hello Alberto,
> I cc this to haskell-cafe again.
> Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> Not so much memory, because data is referentially transparent, the new Map
>> can point to whole subtrees of the old map that stay the same. is similar
>> than when a new list is created by prefixing a new element from a old
>> ys= x:xs. ys is not at all a fresh copy, but x plus a pointer to the
>> of xs. this is the only new data that is needed to create ys.
> You could just as well compare with appending a new element to the end of
> the list, which needs a complete copy of the list structure to be made. One
> has to look more closely to see which case it is here.
> More specifically, I do not see how this sharing of substructures could be
> employed in the implementation of hash tables, which rely on O(1) random
> access into arrays.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe