RE: [sv-ec]E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST October 26th 2007

 2113  ___ Yes   _X_ No  

 

I'd like to discuss the merits of the added sentence:

    For queues, any change in size due to randomization results in
elements being added or removed from the end of the queue.

Why is this a requirement for queues only? How would this be observable
in a randomized queue?

 

Other than that, I do favor the replacement of associative array with
queues.

 

 [DR] This is consistent with the behavior of dynamic arrays which does
a copy of the original pre-randomized array to the re-sized array. So if
the size was greater, the null class handles would be at the tail of the
queue.

[DR] It's also visible if there are active references to elements that
do not get deleted. i.e. If some task has a reference to element 0 of
the queue and then the queue gets randomized, that reference is still
valid if the size remains greater than 0.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.