> On 23 Feb 2015, at 21:15, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com
> <mailto:bera.clem...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It depends on your OrderedCollection implementation.
>
> OrderedCollection has a variable size in memory. When instantiated, it has
> for example 10 slots, and if you have more than 10 objects, it needs to
> change its size to hold more slots.
>
>
> I thought that was the case too, but I cannot find in code what you say.
What Clement says is that *conceptionally* it has a variyng size. The current
implementation uses an internal Array, as he describes:
>
> The current implementation relies on an indirection to an array, when the
> array overflows, the orderedCollection allocates a new bigger array and copy
> the slots from the existing array. There are some heuristics on array size to
> avoid having to grow the array too often.
>
> If you want the shallowCopy to work, you have to use the old implementation
> of OrderedCollection, which encodes in its field directly the values it
> holds. In this case however when the collection overflows you create a new
> orderedCollection so you need to use #become: to migrate references to the
> old orderedCollection to the new one. This used to be a bad idea because the
> become primitive was slow, but since we have Spur, it may be relevant to look
> at it again. This old implementation is more memory efficient too.
And then, with the new fast #become:, we can go back the the old implementation
and grow OrderedCollection using #become:, which would mean that we would
not need two objects anymore…
Marcus
