09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, because if you aren't using flags the same way as DavidHaley you are obviously using the wrong data structure. (Conceded arguably, no less)

In actuality, like I said, people should figure out what is best for their problem. Some people want to use a bitset as a virtual list of flags which can be many. And there can be many lists defined with 1 or 2 of these bits set. That can add up to a lot of memory.

So people reading this thread can just think about their own problem before deciding what system to use. I pointed out the differences and why mine even exists. (Not to mention mine has a C and C++ library)
09 Nov, 2008, elanthis wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not personally keen on the idea of automatically allocating IDs to values if you store those values in files directly (be they as numbers or as letters that represent numbers). You want your file formats to be consistent in the face of ID addition and removal.

I wouldn't whine about converting code from using bitwise operations, either. This is something you can do with a Perl one-liner. If you're wasting more than a minute or two converting that code, you should instead spend your time learning to use all of the tools available to you.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Geez Runter, chill out a bit. All I said was that if you are using a very sparse bitset, maybe other data structures would be better. It's kind of funny that I say that different situations call for different data structures, and you blast me and respond that "in actuality people should figure out what is best for their problem".
09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
if your bitset is so sparse that skipping is giving you considerable gains to offset the efficiency loss, you are using the wrong data structure.


No, here's what you actually said.

I guess I'm just too dumb to understand what you mean, but to me that sounds like you are saying:
"if your bitset is so sparse that skipping is giving you considerable gains to offset the efficiency loss, you are using the wrong data structure."
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me. I'm not sure why the two things I said are contradictory or opposing. What do you want me to clarify or explain?
09 Nov, 2008, Runter wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
You are using the wrong data structure if your bitset is so sparse that skipping is giving you considerable gains to offset the efficiency loss.


Yeah, I guess that would be the same thing as trying to say you should use the data structure that best fits the problem–

As long as it's not "the wrong" data structure. Which that clearly says if you are getting considerable gains, this would be.

Let's just rewrite history. I don't really care about making points, but I like others reading this to know both sides of the story.
09 Nov, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
I am sorry, I still have no idea what you are asking me or accusing me of. Saying:
if (some condition holds) then (data structure is wrong)
is not different from saying:
use the right data structure depending on the conditions
20.0/27