|
choose-and-remove! operation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Sep 2015 18:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(11 Sep 2015 19:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Sep 2015 22:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation John Cowan (12 Sep 2015 03:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(12 Sep 2015 03:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 05:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
John Cowan
(12 Sep 2015 05:31 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
John Cowan
(12 Sep 2015 03:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 12:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
John Cowan
(12 Sep 2015 14:23 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 19:52 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 20:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(12 Sep 2015 20:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: choose-and-remove! operation
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(12 Sep 2015 22:02 UTC)
|
Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:
> The syntax is fine, but shouldn't be relied upon to exist. At a minimum,
> there should be a procedural interface.
I think the procedural interface would be (popper <ref-procedure), and
likewise (pusher <ref-procedure> and so on.
> It's O(1) vs. O(N), which quickly matters, especially when it's executed in
> a loop.
I don't understand this.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your ear. However, I would
suggest you wash your hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.
--gadicath