[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: strings draft
> From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Tom Lord wrote:
> > > However, in either case you still have two problems:
> > > 1) Both are very different from unconditional O(1) access.
> >The language I recommend for R6RS says "expected case O(1)", not
> >It's not a requirement, just guidance -- so it doesn't prevent any
> >implementation from conforming.
> If it's guidance rather than a requirement, it would be better
> to use the word "recommended" rather than "expected". The latter
> has a technical meaning when talking about algorithmic complexity,
> which is the expected runtime of an algorithm for "normal" data.
I'm using "expected" in the technical sense you refer to.
The proposed guidance is about expected, not worst-case performance.
(At the same time -- this is turning silly. It would be
unprecedented to have performance-related guidance in R^nRS
so perhaps the simplest thing is just to let the precedent stand.)
Just consider me as having walked around in the commons for a while
carrying a big sign that says "Don't make lame implementations of