Re: GHashTable suggestions

[Darin Adler <darin eazel com>]

on 1/5/01 7:57 AM, Havoc Pennington at hp redhat com wrote:

>> The only problem I see is that inserting a new item into a GHashTable
>> does replace the value (and destroys it if a destroy_func was given),
>> but keeps the old key in place. This problem is longstanding, but
>> should probably be handled differently when a key_destroy_func is
>> specified ?!
> 
> Maybe we could add g_hash_table_replace() which is like _insert() but
> replaces the key? Kinda lame, but also kinda needed... dunno.

It seems to me that destroying the new key passed in instead of the one in
the hash table in this case would be fine (and compatible), although I
wouldn't design a new class this way. We wouldn't need a new
g_hash_table_xxx call. I can't think of any case where this would cause
trouble in code that I write; callers who don't want this behavior can do
g_hash_table_remove followed by g_hash_table_insert instead.

    -- Darin