[erlang-questions] map elements in defined order

Jesper Louis Andersen jesper.louis.andersen@REDACTED
Tue Oct 31 11:51:46 CET 2017

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:09 PM Richard Carlsson <
carlsson.richard@REDACTED> wrote:

> As we quoted from the reference manual, the < ordering on maps is actually
> implementation independent and future proof (while still being a total
> order). The sacrifice is that to compare two maps with <, their keys must
> be mapped into canonical order (with integers before floats as discussed).
> This is clearly more costly than just taking whatever order the current
> underlying hash+HAMT produces, but worth it since it preserves those nice
> properties.
Oh, then I was wrong!

Thanks for the correction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20171031/368fcb1f/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list