From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: hash-table-{to, from}-alist Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:29:06 +0900 Message-ID: <87k5ari5jh.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <863aknitfg.fsf@lifelogs.com> <20080830051807.GB9625@tomas> <86bpwe9su5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <867i6z1jo5.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <86ej14vhvg.fsf@lifelogs.com> <20081122054510.GA28298@tomas> <873ahkkkt5.fsf@xemacs.org> <20081122152126.GA4142@tomas> <87vdufk6do.fsf@xemacs.org> <867i6tt4yz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87bpw4k1z6.fsf@xemacs.org> <86bpw3d829.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227666361 1689 80.91.229.12 (26 Nov 2008 02:26:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 26 03:27:05 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L5A7K-0003IL-Jp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:27:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59816 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L5A6A-000888-R9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:25:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L5A65-00085P-6A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:25:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L5A63-00084r-Nd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:25:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58328 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L5A63-00084o-KX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:25:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:38145) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L5A63-0003Tg-82 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:25:43 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396768212; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:25:40 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0391D1A2D03; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:29:07 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <86bpw3d829.fsf@lifelogs.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:106182 Archived-At: Ted Zlatanov writes: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:50:53 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: > > SJT> Ted Zlatanov writes: > >> The equality test is necessary if it was given originally (meaning, > >> if it's not 'eql). I don't think we should ever omit it, even if > >> it's the default value, for readability. > > SJT> I disagree. But it's not incompatible as long as you don't make the > SJT> :test option to make-hash-table obligatory. ;-) > > OK, I'll make :test optional. Is size mandatory? I ask since you put > it in your example, but you could have done so to illustrate > parameters. It's not mandatory in the read syntax, but an accurate estimate will avoid some consing at read time. As an implementation detail, the write syntax does include it if non-zero. #s(hash-table) --> # (let ((print-readably t)) (prin1 #s(hash-table))) #s(hash-table) --> # #s(hash-table size 2) --> # (let ((print-readably t)) (prin1 #s(hash-table size 2))) #s(hash-table) --> # > I'm OK with that format and it seems pretty good, Good. I would be very annoyed if we had to support an alternative syntax.