Re: g_list_prepend() vs g_list_append()

[Mark Mielke <mark mark mielke cc>]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:20:01PM -0500, Chema Celorio wrote:
> GList is a very good linked list implementation. You are just having a
> problem with the names, don't let the names fool you. If you want to do
> efficient append then do:
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
>    l = g_list_prepend (l, i);
> l = g_list_reverse (l);
> ...
> That is what everybody does. With the very heavy use of glist out there
> don't expect the implementation to change. 

The implementation wouldn't change. Your example above passed the first
list element to g_list_prepend(), which is all quite normal.

If "everybody does" g_list_prepend()/g_list_reverse(), would there be any
resistance to the additional of a GCList or similar, that was a GList,
except that it used g_clist_*() as methods, and was circular?

Seems like solving the problem, rather than requiring everybody to use
a workaround, might be prudent.

g_list_reverse() may be fairly fast, but replacing:


     g_list_append(), ...;

With:

     g_list_reverse();
     g_list_prepend(), ...;
     g_list_reverse();

Does not fall under the category of 'efficient'.

mark

-- 
mark mielke cc/markm ncf ca/markm nortelnetworks com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/