Re^4: inside-out objects using arrays?

You could avoid that problem by assigning the index to the first undef slot, rather than straight incrementing:

my $instance_index = List::Util::first { !defined $_ } @name;
[download]

You end up, though, with an O(n) constructor. But perhaps the savings in access make up for this.

Comment on Re^4: inside-out objects using arrays? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: inside-out objects using arrays? by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 18, 2005 at 02:20 UTC
If you really want to save memory, you may want to avoid pinning your inside-out array at the high-water mark. Store a stack of reclaimed indices and push to it in the destructor and shift from it when generating the reference for a new object. Then you can shrink the array if necessary. (When you ask "Wait, won't it stay at the high-water mark even if there were 1000 elements and are only two now?", I'll sigh and talk about compacting garbage collectors and double-indirection the other flaws in this scheme. Still, it's a fun idea.)	[reply]
Re^6: inside-out objects using arrays? by rvosa (Curate) on Sep 18, 2005 at 12:23 UTC
Hey, that's neat. I'll have to think about that. Thanks!	[reply]
Re^5: inside-out objects using arrays? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 18, 2005 at 02:52 UTC
Why not just convert @name to %name. You can keep using the numerical index. That changes the array into a sparse array. The time cost is quite minimal.	[reply]