Browse thread
[oliver: Re: [Caml-list] Should be INSIDE STANDARD-LIB: Hashtbl.keys]
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | oliver@f... |
| Subject: | Re: [oliver: Re: [Caml-list] Should be INSIDE STANDARD-LIB: Hashtbl.keys] |
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 01:00:39PM +1000, skaller wrote: > On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 06:09, Oliver Bandel wrote: > > > Because there is no Hashtbl.size in the standard lib, > > which sux because O(n) is a high price to pay > for an integer the Hashtbl could keep track of > easily. What is the difference between both? Do I understand you correctly? You say, keeping track of a count does decrement the performance dramaticaly? How big is the performance difference between using a count and using no count? Ciao, Oliver ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners