On 1/31/2010 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> a. 3.1.3: do we really need in-line + out-of-line keys? Besides
>> the concept-count increase, we wonder whether out-of-line keys would
>> cause trouble to generic libraries, as the values for the keys
>> wouldn't be part of the values iterated when doing a "foreach" over
>> the table.
>
>
> Certainly it is a matter of prioritizing among various requirements.
> Out-of-line keys enable people to store simple persistent hash maps. I
> think it would be wrong to require that data be always stored as
> objects. A library can always elide the availability of out-of-line
> keys if that poses a problem to its users.
What about just supporting out-of-line keys? If somebody wanted the key
to be part of what they were iterating, they could still have the object
contain the key.
With that said, wouldn't a persistent hash map be better done in local
or session storage? I really think we should drop one of these
concepts. I don't presently have a strong opinion on which.
Cheers,
Shawn