The list seems to take on a dual interface of
A linked list (head,tail). Or a stack
( push, pop). There does not appear to
Be any other reason for its duplicity

An roList is a linked list while an roArray is a physically contiguous array. The operations are similar but the performance is different. For example, all of the roList operations you listed are O(1), while roArray.Shift and Unshift are O(n). On the other hand, array access with [] is O(1) for roArray but O(n) for roList. roList generally uses more memory than roArray.

--Mark

"RokuMarkn" wrote:
An roList is a linked list while an roArray is a physically contiguous array. The operations are similar but the performance is different. For example, all of the roList operations you listed are O(1), while roArray.Shift and Unshift are O(n). On the other hand, array access with [] is O(1) for roArray but O(n) for roList. roList generally uses more memory than roArray.

Now i understand - much obliged for the succinct explanation!

As commentary, some of the corollaries will be:

• Never loop over big roList with index access (for i=1 to a.count(): ... a ... )


• In fact, don't use roList, except in a rare event that calls for it; e.g. queue (RemoveHead/AddTail) or dequeue


• Don't use shift/unshift with big roArray; to implement stack use push/pop

"EnTerr" wrote:

As commentary, some of the corollaries will be:

• Never loop over big roList with index access (for i=1 to a.count(): ... a ... )


• In fact, don't use roList, except in a rare event that calls for it; e.g. queue (RemoveHead/AddTail) or dequeue


• Don't use shift/unshift with big roArray; to implement stack use push/pop

the GetIndex() method (without an offset) returns the currently indexed item, and advances the pointer to the next item, sort of like Next() in many linked list implementations. That would be the appropriate way to iterate efficiently through an roList.

I only mention it because your original comparison of the ifList and ifArray interfaces didn't mention it, and neither did your commentary, so it may have confused some as to how an roList could be efficiently used.

"kbenson" wrote:
the GetIndex() method (without an offset) returns the currently indexed item, and advances the pointer to the next item, sort of like Next() in many linked list implementations. That would be the appropriate way to iterate efficiently through an roList.

I only mention it because your original comparison of the ifList and ifArray interfaces didn't mention it, and neither did your commentary, so it may have confused some as to how an roList could be efficiently used.

I did not say roList cannot be iterated, i was very specific about not using numeric indexing. roList is enumerable, so one can use ifEnum.reset()/next()/isNext(), and by extension for each x in roList.

Sure, you can try iterating with ifList.ResetIndex()/GetIndex() too but this is kinda broken: how would you know when end of list is reached? GetIndex() returns invalid if (a) end of list is reached or (b) if current element=invalid, so those are indistinguishable. That smells to me.

There is also another method RemoveIndex(), which i for the life of me cannot imagine in use. It would erase the "current" element (as per ResetIndex/GetIndex iterator) but how do you know what exactly are you deleting? You cannot "peek" at current element, because GetIndex moves to the next one and then current becomes unreachable previous. So have to delete blind (by resetindex() and getIndex() count to N? that is slow). And there is no counterpart InsertIndex(el) ...

Also, why does ResetIndex() return boolean while reset() is void? I am wary of these 3 methods.