upContainers - a stack of primitives
| A summary for upContainers |
upContainers is a library that defines and implements primitive data structures used in everyday programming. Currently, the library defines stacks (/Stack), queues (/Queue), and sets (/Sets), and is easily implementable in your project. Documentation is located in the library.
upContainers
upContainers
Posted by Unknown Person on Friday, May 09, 2008 07:27PM
- 9 comments
(link)
/
Keywords:
libraries,
data_structures
Login to post a comment.
#9 Thurnok:
Well, the couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head would be:
- Code elegance for the person using the library.
- processor cycles used
For example, when using the output of some other function (assuming it doesn't output a list):
var/Stack/S = new(<somefunc>)
as opposed to:
var/list/L
L = new()
L += <somefunc>
var/Stack/S = new(L)
or:
var/Stack/S = new()
S.Push(<somefunc>)
The first alternative is obviously not as elegant plus extra overhead, the second makes two calls to the obj vice a single call. I'm not that familiar with DM yet, but in terms of C++, an IF() conditional does not take as many cpu cycles as an additional call to an object's interface function.
Also, the particular interface functions in reference execute the same statements as well as some additional ones not actually needed when creating an initial list (assuming not setting max=0). In terms of cpu cycles for initializing a Stack or Queue with a single item, I believe the code modifications I pointed out would be more effecient. This does however, have the caveat of breaking the maxlen for cases of max=0, but since there are no functions for changing the maxlen, I would think it more beneficial to prevent the occurance since I cannot imagine why one would create a Stack or Queue with a maxlen=0 unless function(s) were added for modifying a Stack/Queue length.
That being said, one would have to do some usability testing to determine if the single additional IF() statement used over the course of an entire session of an application averaged in more cpu cycles than without based on whether the app more commonly created a Stack or Queue object passing no arguments, a list as an argument, or a single value as an argument.
Either way, good stuff to have. Seems like DM would have had functions for these built-in. Perhaps a future update will, but in the mean time, nice to have this library handy.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 04:35PM
(Edited on Sunday, May 11, 2008 04:47PM)
#8 Foomer:
> > Stacks and Queues can be initialized with singular data instead of lists.
>
> I'm debating whether this kind of feature is useful.
Ideally it should support both. And there's no reason why it can't.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 04:14PM
#7 Unknown Person:
Hi Thurnok, thanks for the input. Oddly enough, I had one of the fixes already done before you posted, but you helped point out the other function the error was also in.
> Stacks and Queues can be initialized with singular data instead of lists. This saves you from creating an unnecessary list just to provide a single item for initializing your Stack or Queue.
I'm debating whether this kind of feature is useful. If someone would want to initialize a stack or a queue with only one value, it would just be as effective to call Push() or Enqueue() right after initializing it. I can't see many reasons why a programmer would want to initialize a stack or queue with one value, but if you can give me a good enough reason to add that kind of functionality, I will consider it. Ideally, I'd like to keep these data structures as bloat-free as possible, and to only add essential features.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 03:07PM
#6 Thurnok:
First of all, nice job in adding functionality to DM. I'm a long time developer (1977) but just started to play with DM this past week. Looked thru your code, made a couple minor fixes, and enhancements. Hopefully they will prove useful to some.
Enhancements:
Stacks and Queues can be initialized with singular data instead of lists. This saves you from creating an unnecessary list just to provide a single item for initializing your Stack or Queue.
Fixes:
In Stacks and Queues, when not providing any initial data and attempting to read from the Stack or Queue (with getTop(), getFront(), and getBack() ) you will receive errors due to the list not existing and attempting to access contents via an index.
Replacement code:
http://www.tpblocks.com/tmp/codechanges.html
Testing Code:
http://www.tpblocks.com/tmp/testcode.html
Sunday, May 11, 2008 01:53PM
#5 DivineO'peanut:
That sounds good, then. But I still think that you should use datums instead of lists.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:07AM
#4 Unknown Person:
That particular linked list method has its ups and downs. The library will eventually support a separate linked list object which can also be used as a stack or queue.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:01AM
#3 DivineO'peanut:
The one thing that bugs me in this library is that stacks and queues use lists instead of datums. While the maximum amount of lists that can be used in a program is relatively small and should be used with care, there can be a few billion datums active at a time.
How about going along the lines of how stacks are programmed here?
Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:45AM
#2 Kakashi24142:
Oh darn! I was going to make a library with those data structures, but looks like I'm too late :/. It looks pretty cool btw.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 07:16AM
#1 CaptFalcon33035:
HOLY DUNG I NEEDED TO KNOW THIS STUFF!!!
Friday, May 09, 2008 09:06PM