On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 10:33:50AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Is there a reason you went for a deque instead of a stack? I can
> definitely see the need for a _PMC_ deque (unshift on the current
> PerlArray implementation blows), and for an integer _stack_ (regexes), but
> not for an int-only deque. I'm assuming you have a reason for this, which
> I have not yet discovered, and I'm curious what it is.
I refuse to discuss this until we can come to an agreement on the
number of u's and e's in deque/dequeue.
Actually, I have developed this clever regex algorithm where I use a
dequeue as if it were two stacks placed back-to-back that handles
dynamic rule replacement really well... just kidding. No, for regexes,
I just use the dequeue as a stack. The reason why I made it into a
dequeue was just to make it more palatable, because now it can be used
as a typed array ("my int @array" or whatever.) I like to avoid adding
anything that is completely regex-specific when possible, and adding
the shift/unshift functionality didn't slow down push/pop at all.
