On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> > James Edward Gray II wrote:
> > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 22:13, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> > > > > Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> > > > > > Akinori MUSHA wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm feeling some more clauses should be added, but that's all so
> > > > > > > far.
> > > > > > > All opinions and suggestions are welcome.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > So +1 for fastthread in core.
> > > > > 
> > > > > rbtree, as long as we're voting for core inclusions.
        [...]
> > How will it help the Set library?
> > 
> > All keys in an RBTree must be comparable, and that's too limiting for
> > elements of Sets. Anyway sets are unordered....
> 
> Sorry, I see it now. SortedSet uses rbtree if it's available. I was unaware of
> that, and it seems a good argument for including rbtree.
> 
> RBTrees have been useful to me in several ways, including a quick and dirty
> PriorityQueue [ruby-talk:133202].

So why don't we have heaps in the core, then?  They are good for
priority queues, and for fast sorting (if not "stable" sorting).
Yes, we can implement them in ruby, or use Facets, but if your
reason is Fast sorting then C would be nice...  

> RPA used to have rbtree. Maybe having rbtree as a gem would satisfy those few
> of us who care...
> 
> -- 
>       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
> 
        Hugh