Okay, I get where your going (I think). It work's but carries a fairly high cost.
I was premature in accepting etcshadow's suggestion. When it came to implementing it, the shine fell away.
This details the problem(s) as I see it so far:
Using your technique,
@actual %indexOf @keyFor 0 [ A_value ] { A => 0 } [ A ] 1 [ B_value ] { B => 1 } [ B ] 2 [ C_value ] { C => 2 } [ C ] 3 [ D_value ] { D => 3 } [ D ] 4 [ E_value ] { E => 4 } [ E ]
Accessing C via key calls for C to become top item so calling getByKey( 'C' ); does:
sub getByKey { my $key = shift; my $idx = $indexOf{ $key }; my $value = $actual[ $idx ]; push @actual, splice @actual, $idx, 1; push @keyFor, splice @keyFor, $idx, 1; ## Completely re-build %indexOf $indexOf{ $keyFor[ $_ ] } = $_ for 0 .. $#keyFor; return $value }
Afterwards, all linkages are maintained:
@actual %indexOf @keyFor 0 [ C_value ]* { A => 1 }* [ C ]* 1 [ A_value ] { B => 2 }* [ A ]* 2 [ B_value ] { C => 0 }* [ B ]* 3 [ D_value ] { D => 3 }* [ D ]* 4 [ E_value ] { E => 4 }* [ E ]*
but requires two splices and the for loop is expensive!
Using etcshadow's layout, if I use splice to reorder @keys, the linkages in the hashes are self maintaining; but:
@keys %valByKey %keyByValRef 0 [ A ] { A => \A_value } { \A_value => A } 1 [ B ] { B => \B_value } { \B_value => B } 2 [ C ] { C => \C_value } { \C_value => C } 3 [ D ] { D => \D_value } { \D_value => D } 4 [ E ] { E => \E_value } { \E_value => E }
If accessing C via key, calls for C to become top item getByKey( 'C' ); does?
sub getByKey { my $key = shift; my $value = $valByKey{ $key }; ## In order to splice the C item to the top ## I need it's index, but I don't have a way ## to go from key 'C' to index? return $value; }
If there was a version of splice that located the items to remove by its address rather than by index, I would be laughing.
Using a hybrid of the two:
@keys %valByKey %idxByVal 0 [ A ] { A => \A_value } { \A_value => 0 } 1 [ B ] { B => \B_value } { \B_value => 1 } 2 [ C ] { C => \C_value } { \C_value => 2 } 3 [ D ] { D => \D_value } { \D_value => 3 } 4 [ E ] { E => \E_value } { \E_value => 4 }
Accessing C via key calls for C to become top item getByKey( 'C' ); does:
sub getByKey { my $key = shift; my $value = $valByKey{ $key }; my $idx = $idxByVal{ $value }; push @keys, splice @keys, $idx, 1; ## To maintain linkage, it becomes necessary ## to completely re-build %idxByVal %idxByValue = map{ $valByKey{ $key[ $_ ] } => $_ } 0 .. $#keys; return $value; }
Afterwards:
@keys %valByKey %idxByVal 0 [ C ] { A => \A_value } { \A_value => 0 } 1 [ A ] { B => \B_value } { \B_value => 1 } 2 [ B ] { C => \C_value } { \C_value => 2 } 3 [ D ] { D => \D_value } { \D_value => 3 } 4 [ E ] { E => \E_value } { \E_value => 4 }
One splice and a somewhat more expensive (because of double indirection) loop!
I'm still looking at the other two suggestions.
In reply to Re^4: Re-orderable keyed access structure?
by BrowserUk
in thread Re-orderable keyed access structure?
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |