From: James Coglan <jcoglan@...>
Date: 2009-06-10T18:44:55+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:23785] Re: Observable on Set?

--0016e6d27c9082e7a8046bfb5316
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

2009/6/10 James Coglan <jcoglan@googlemail.com>

> Quick question, is there a reason why Observable uses an Array for storage
> instead of a Set? Wouldn't a Set be faster, especially for removing
> observers? Are there other places in the standard library where use of data
> structures could be improved?
>


Gah, I was looking at the 1.8 lib. 1.9 uses a Hash. Sorry!

--0016e6d27c9082e7a8046bfb5316
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/6/10 James Coglan <span dir=3D"ltr"=
>&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jcoglan@googlemail.com">jcoglan@googlemail.com</a>&g=
t;</span><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">Quick question, is there a reason why Obs=
ervable uses an Array for storage instead of a Set? Wouldn&#39;t a Set be f=
aster, especially for removing observers? Are there other places in the sta=
ndard library where use of data structures could be improved?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br><br>Gah, I was looking at the 1.8 lib. 1.9 uses=
 a Hash. Sorry! <br></div></div><br>

--0016e6d27c9082e7a8046bfb5316--