From: Martin Duerst <duerst@...>
Date: 2007-12-18T16:14:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Enumerable#uniq, anybody?

At 20:20 07/12/17, murphy wrote:
>Martin Duerst wrote:
>> However, it looks somewhat ugly and unnecessary, and it isn't compatible
>> with 1.8. This could easily be fixed by adding uniq to Enumerator, the
>> simplest form being:
>>     def uniq
>>       to_a.uniq
>>     end
>the current implementation of uniq depends on the receiver being
>converted into a hash table (to make it O(m) instead of O(m**2)). you
>probably wouldn't expect that from an enumerator...to_a makes it clear,
>though.

I don't understand your argument. to_a means "convert to an Array",
not "convert to a Hash". How uniq is implemented internally shouldn't
bother anybody (as long as it is fast).

Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp