<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Let's just leave the current implementation alone, please. It is a-ok.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>+1<br><br><div dir="ltr">/*—————————————————-*/<div>Sent from my iPhone<div><a href="https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png">https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png</a></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org</span></div></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">https://datascilv.com and https://datascilv.org</span></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Jan 25, 2020, at 02:50, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux@gmx.de> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 25.01.2020, at 10:23, Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob@resfarm.de> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>But we should not break #new: 1 and #new: 2 for HashedCollections, please.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Couldn't it be faster to use an OrderedCollection instead of a hashed one for such small numbers of elements? If the hash computation outweighs the linear search...</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span>As I said.</span><br><span>This is just too much premature optimization of everything.</span><br><span>It worked well before. If you need really small key-value-mappings, you should make one yourself.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Let's just leave the current implementation alone, please. It is a-ok.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Best regards</span><br><span> -Tobias</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>