On 8/8/07, Jeremy Bruestle <jeremy.bruestle@gmail.com> wrote:
If anyone has more question though, or has ideas, or just wants to express interest, please do so. At this point I think I'm going to keep working on the project even if no one is interested, because I see of lot of fun problems to attack, but I'm still curious if anyone else has use for such a structure. Thanks to all so far for the good feedback.
-Jeremy
Your original reason for the shared map seems to be the cost of copying. If the map was based on a vector instead of a tree (and didn't share nodes at all) do you think that might solve your slow copy problems? I worked on a project where we found that copying of maps was one of the major bottle-necks, so we converted most of them to sorted vectors, and that fixed it. We didn't need the sorted vectors to have all the same behaviour as maps, but I've had a plan for vector-based maps sitting on the back-burner for a while now. Might be something to consider. Tony