[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: possible bug in TreeMap.sucessor implementation

From: Dalibor Topic
Subject: Re: possible bug in TreeMap.sucessor implementation
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 06:01:01 -0800 (PST)

--- Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >>Since nil is supposed to have children that are
> also
> >>nil it appears
> >>that at some point nil.right was assiged a value. 
> > 
> > 
> > would it be possible to make nil an
> "ImmutableNode",
> > so that such assignments are caught and greeted
> with
> > an Error? that should make your life easier next
> time
> > you have to debug a similar case.
> For debugging, yes.  For efficiency, no.  Creating
> an ImmutableNode 
> would require reworking the entire TreeMap class to
> use method calls, 
> rather than field assignments, for manipulating
> nodes.  Adding 
> polymorphic calls is an additional layer of
> indirection, and will make 
> the overall implementation slower.

Just a hypothetical question: wouldn't it be possible
for an inlining (JIT-) compiler to inline the
setter/getter calls if ImmutableNode was private
final, and the setter/getter methods too? I'm dreaming
of inlining class loaders ;)


dalibor topic

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]