Subject: Re: bug#68244: hash-table improvements

From: Mattias Engdegård <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:42:45 +0100

8 feb. 2024 kl. 15.19 skrev Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>:

> For me, the more important aspect of obarrays is that we should have
> a separate obarray type

Oh yes. This is necessary for automatic growth if nothing else.

> Of course, we'd still have to *also* accept plain vectors, sadly.

In some contexts such as `try-complete` perhaps, but I don't think we're saddled with it forever in places that actually use an obarray (like `intern`).

>  we can do something much simpler: vectors are accepted by
> simply storing in the first field a reference to the actual obarray
> object, so there's no need to play any games and/or share representation
> between vectors and obarray.

Why is that simpler than having `intern` accept both obarray objects and plain vectors, during a transitional period?