Re: Scheme style auto-resizing hashtable (fwd)

[Ian Bicking <ian@bickiia.earlhall.earlham.edu>]

Tel writes:
...
> Hash tables don't maintain order of the keys. Dictionaries are in
> alphabetical order (last time I looked at a paper one was a while back).
> You have to be a little bit careful when freely associating concepts.

"Dictionary" is a term coming from tradition as much as metaphor.
Python, Smalltalk, and Objective C (and I imagine other languages I
don't know about) all call hash tables dictionaries.  Hash tables
usually end up being the most commonly used type of key-indexed
collection.  So they give it a nice name that doesn't force one to
think about the implementation.  Without a compelling reason to do
otherwise, a programmer should generally choose to use hash tables I'd 
think.

Maybe it's a matter of trying to improperly impose another language's
naming schemes onto Guile, but IMHO those naming schemes are well
thought out.  However, they also encompass things which have already
been decided in Scheme, so maybe the advantage is somewhat lost.

>    index->list
>    table->ids
>    table->attributes

What about index->hash-table (or index->dictionary, or whatever)?  And 
vice-versa, of course.


<------------------------------------------------------------------->
< Ian Bicking                 |  bickiia@earlham.edu                >
< drawer #419 Earlham College |  http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia >
< Richmond, IN 47374          |  (765) 973-2824                     >
<------------------------------------------------------------------->