dictionaries (was Re: new syntax - a provocation)
Fri Sep 26 08:02:50 CEST 2003
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:35:43 +1200 (NZST)
"Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
> Now, if you are going to rewrite the dict module so that it uses some
> sort of special internal data structure, all you have to do to get to
> my proposal is adopt some syntax for these things as well, and why
That was my point.
To summarize: you asked, "Why not use the dict module?" and you gave a
bunch of reasons based on the current implementation, and I pointed out
that the representation of dicts is undefined - so the implementation of
the dict module is _irrelevant_ - so you *can* (and in fact we probably
*should* for the sake of easement) use the dict module (**interface**).
And in the quoted paragraph above you seem to realize that. Boffo. My
work here is done. The rest of your message is commentary that dodges &
hovers around that central point. Except for:
> We don't need a new interface for _that_, but do you really _like_
> the existing interface? There were _reasons_ why I proposed a
> different interface.
It's not a matter of me _liking_ it. It's a matter of there being
umpteen hundred (thousand?) lines of code already _written_ for it.
More information about the erlang-questions