Erlang standard library quirks

Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB) <>
Wed Feb 8 19:11:20 CET 2006


 
Robert Virding
> >     dict is worse, with just a snooty
> > 
> >        The representation of a dictionary is not defined.
> > 
> >     it may as well say "don't you worry about that". Turns out
> >     it's a hash (2).
> 
> (Snooty reply) One reason for having an abstract data type 
> like dict IS to hide the internal representation so that 
> users don't go in and fiddle with things they should best leave
> alone.

Of course, if the documentation of an abstract data type refuses
to say anything about complexity, would you say it's generally 
safe to assume that it can be used for large data sets?  (:

/Uffe



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list