Re: [Axiom-developer] Spad and its object model

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:

| Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
| 
| > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| > 
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
| > | > | If the vtable can be interrogated with a variety of keys, allowing
| > | > | useful mapping of elements, I dont see how a hash is any more
| > | > | flexible.  Perhaps you could provide an example?
| > | > 
| > | > Did I say "more flexible"?
| > | > 
| > | > When you have an array and you index it with value 2, what does "2"
| > | > means? 
| > | 
| > | As I said, you are not limited to using an integer.  You could use
| > | any key which makes sense.
| > 
| > In that case, can you remind me of your main objection to what I 
| > originally suggested?
| 
| My objection was that the current implementation allows interrorgation
| based not only on integer keys, but also w.r.t operation names.
| Further functionality could be added to allow other indexing schemes
| _without_ changing the underlying representation.

That is precisel where I disagree.  
The current representation forces uses of integer as index.
And I'm back to my question:  when you index the vtable with value 2,
what is the meaning of value 2?  You have not answer that question so far;
except saying you are opposed to any change.

| Global change to a hash would certainly cost us in execution time.

Why does that cost more than what you have proposed so far?

| I have not yet seen anything convincing me that a change is essential.

I was looking more for feedback than convincing you -- I don't think I 
can convince you of anything.

-- Gaby