]> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Harrison, John R wrote: > | I've been batting around ideas for ways to do balanced trees so that no > | matter what order you add things, you always get the same tree. But even > | assuming you could do this, doing a structural compare is still O(N). So > | you might as well let the trees be different. > > Right, but see my second message --- I'm only interested in canonicity > up to structural equality and I'm happy with O(N) comparison. So it's > just the "no matter what order you add things you get the same tree" > property that I care about. But it's not yet obvious to me whether I > can even achieve that much. > It feels like that can be done, at the cost of an occassional O(N) "massive rebalancing". Well, it certainly can be done with an O(N) insert/delete. I'll think about it a bit. -- "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford Brian ------------------- 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