Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Koichi Murase <myoga.murase@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement rehashing for associative arrays (Re: speeding up hash_search?)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:48:04 +0900
Lines: 34
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.791.1587394101.3066.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <CALv3B7aiTbhpyUL17Eg5prH39EgMP8uSDdD554OdND3LFETAQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFLRLk8ydO6ev8wRcJ35kzzN3Yt2_9sjsc6L+C0CC6dCxud_NA@mail.gmail.com> <CALv3B7bzh3degKPCe5c_avUc90L+bE8jqKKcaVo13zwqEyB5-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFLRLk-XAU3rrRHy1wWdY7Py-gkLaU-UfiPc47MOEA8eutYx1A@mail.gmail.com> <20200420124911.GW845@eeg.ccf.org> <a351bc16-182b-b2e9-319d-e9d1615f209a@case.edu> <CAFLRLk_KetD6+-o2HOdP6ueKuynu_7Yn6ARZ_HbC4QC=99-WcA@mail.gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
To: bug-bash@gnu.org, George Jones <fooologist@gmail.com>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <a351bc16-182b-b2e9-319d-e9d1615f209a@case.edu>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::242; envelope-from=myoga.murase@gmail.com; helo=mail-lj1-x242.google.com
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:16190

2020-04-20 23:05 Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>:
> On 4/20/20 8:49 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:48:44PM +0900, Koichi Murase wrote:
> >> Also, I am sorry that I disturbed your plan for contributing to Bash.
> >> I actually initially doubted that the insertion with the current
> >> implementation is O(N), so I created the test first and then found
> >> that it is an easy fix rather than reimplementing it by B-tree or
> >> other data structures.  I couldn't stop my interest in how much it is
> >> improved by the easy fix.
> >
> > This should in no way make the OP feel that they didn't contribute.
> > Spotting and diagnosing problems is important work, even if their
> > proposed patch wasn't selected as the best solution.
>
> This is quite true.

Dear All,

Yes, thank you for clarification and sorry for confusing writing.  I
did not mean George's contribution disappeared, but just I have
disturbed his five-step plan on his blog where the remaining four
steps are now canceled.  I have to add that identifying the problem is
definitely the most non-trivial part because it is relatively
straightforward to fix the problem once the problem is identified :).
Also, I would like to thank George for additional testing of my patch.

Of course, this also applies to my patches.  I think I have sent more
than ten patches so far and many of them have been applied, but I am
anyway happy if the problems are solved.  You can always reject my
patches when you have better solutions.

--
Koichi