> On Jun 18, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> With a list? No, I would say it's a bad idea.
>>
>>
>> Why a bad idea?
>>
>> As opposed to "can't be done", or "too hard and slow".
>
> Maintaining a record of list indices i
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> With a list? No, I would say it's a bad idea.
>
>
> Why a bad idea?
>
> As opposed to "can't be done", or "too hard and slow".
Maintaining a record of list indices inside an object, with the
specific proviso that:
> If the list is change
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:04:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:27 AM, wrote:
>> I am thinking of a list that actively maintains in its items a member
>> that contains the item's own index in the list. Basically, the item
>> knows its index into the list and the list ensur
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:27 AM, wrote:
> I am thinking of a list that actively maintains in its items a member that
> contains the item's own index in the list. Basically, the item knows its
> index into the list and the list ensures that the index remains in sync. If
> the list is changed,
I'm not sure if "reciprocal" is the right word, or if there is an official term
for this.
I am thinking of a list that actively maintains in its items a member that
contains the item's own index in the list. Basically, the item knows its index
into the list and the list ensures that the index
