From: Nicolas C. <war...@fr...> - 2004-04-14 19:11:52
|
> > I propose the following : > > > > "count" for the number of inserted elements (wrt Enum) > > "allocated_size" (or something else) for the size of the underlying array. > > Why not cardinal and array_length? > > cardinal vs. count: we don't trigger an iterative algorithm; cardinal is > more neutral > array_length: hash tables are always supposed to be based on arrays, > right? let me dismiss "cardinal" : we have already List.length , Enum.count, IO.available ... users might be confused if we had one more way of counting : IMHO "count" and "length" are the only choices, but "length" is more appropriate for flat data structures such as List or Arrays. about "array_length" I'm not satisfied either with "allocated_size" nor "array_length" since the last one is giving information on how hashtbl are implemented, which is never a good idea in an abstract interface. Regards, Nicolas Cannasse |