Re: GHashTable improvements

[Darin Adler <darin eazel com>]

on 3/16/01 3:03 PM, Tim Janik at timj gtk org wrote:

>> - In the discussion earlier, there was some idea that g_hash_table_replace()
>> wasn't necessary as long as g_hash_table_insert() called the destroy
>> notify on the key function.
> 
> that would change the documented semantics of g_hash_table_insert() in a way
> that's very hard to debug. we had this discussion (on gnome-hackers iirc)
> during
> pre-1.2 and didn't change it back then either.
> so g_hash_table_insert() should stay as it is, i.e. not touching node->key if
> it's used to replace items, even if that justifies another API call
> g_hash_table_replace(). at least with that, we can tell people to use
> g_hash_table_replace() if they want to replace instead of insert.
> the replacement bahviour for _insert() just needs to be properly explained
> in the official docs and that's it.

I think you're missing one detail of the proposal, Tim. To preserve the old
semantics, the key that's destroyed in the case of g_hash_table_insert over
an existing hash table entry is the one passed in.

    -- Darin