Re: improved orddict performance
Pedram Nimreezi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.erlang.patches |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAAaFgHskT3HVv8Ffs6m7Kdrf+oSxncdq4uyttTqhz9+4dJzKww@mail.gmail.com> |
That's actually a pretty good point, Backwards compatibility in Erlang is usually a slow gradual 3 version process.. But it might be prudent to throw a warning when a non orddict is introduced. On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Rich Neswold <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Steve Vinoski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK, Anthony brought up yet another issue with my previous modified >> orddict, which is that if someone passes an improper list instead of an >> orddict, the new version acts differently than the old. Since the goal is >> backwards compatibility with improved performance, I've added a fourth >> commit that deals with these issues. >> > > I'm not sure whether this is the backwards compatibility one wants to > preserve. Usually you want to preserve an API, but in this case you're > preserving code that manipulates the internal representation of an orddict. > Any code that uses the orddict API should not end up with an improper list. > Any code that passes an improper list to orddict should break. > > -- > Rich > > _______________________________________________ > erlang-patches mailing list > [email protected] > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches > > -- /* Sincerely -------------------------------------------------------------- Pedram Nimreezi - Chief Technology Officer */ // The hardest part of design … is keeping features out. - Donald Norman _______________________________________________ erlang-patches mailing list [email protected] http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches