How to implement a Hash Table in C

[ravi]

Hi
can anybody tell me that which ds will be best suited to implement a
hash table in C/C++

thanx. in advanced

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@s pamcop.netwrote in message
news:k1******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:40:52 +0100, in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm McLean"
<re*******@bti nternet.comwrot e:

>>>"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb .me.ukwrote in message
news:87***** *******@bsb.me. uk...

I am sorry that my report was not clear. I am not reacting to this
topic rationally.

It's surprising how often people react like that. I get similar
accusation s
all the time about 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted).

<OT>
What, you mean as opposed to the irrationality of the book itself?
</ot>

As you might expect a lot of atheists are very hostile to my religious
books.

Someone who claims that your Refutations book is irrational need not
necessarily be an atheist. I haven't read it myself, so I am commenting
only generally, but it seems to me that there are many possibilities:

Your book is rational, your critic is an atheist, your critic is wrong;
your book is irrational, your critic is an atheist, your critic is
right; your book is rational, your critic is of another faith, your
critic is wrong; your book is irrational, your critic is of another
faith, your critic is right; your book is rational, your critic is a
Christian, your critic is wrong; or your book is irrational, your
critic is a Christian, and your critic is right.

But these boil down to just two truly distinct possibilities - either
the book is irrational (in which case the criticism is correct) or it
is not (in which case the criticism is incorrect), and the faith or
otherwise of the critic is of no particular relevance.

What is interesting is how similar the response is to Basic
Algorithms. They are quite different subjects, and there is no reason
why someone who agrees with me on Christiamity should see eye to eye
on programming matters.

Indeed - and in fact other Christians might not even agree with you on
Christianity. Or they might. It's a broad church (if I may use that
expression in this context!).

But the things said are almost identical - I
regularly get demands to withdraw the book because it doesn't contain
a definitive proof of God's existence, for instance

Neither does the Bible, but I don't see anyone clamouring for it to be
withdrawn.

(it doesn't claim
to, it refutes 12 Common Atheist Arguments, not the same thing as
proving Christianity to be true).

Right. The book should be judged on its merits. If the refutations are
of poor quality, or are easily refuted themselves, or attack the wrong
arguments (e.g. arguments that are not commonly used by atheists), then
the book is a poor book. That doesn't mean it should be withdrawn,
however. The world needs horrible warnings just as much as it needs
good examples.

In case of Basic Algorithms the
pretext is technical, of course, but I think the basic motive is the
same.

The motive is technical. If your purpose is to illustrate algorithms, I
suggest that you use either pseudocode or a language you know far
better than you know C.

People see a book as something socially unacceptable.

Not in comp.lang.c they don't.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Very.Little.Gravitas.Indeed]

On Aug 15, 12:25 am, "Malcolm McLean" <regniz...@btin ternet.com>
wrote:

However they have been magnified into an assertion that I am
"unqualifie d to write" a book on algorithms. The technical objections,
though real issues, are obviously a pretext for something a bit deeper.

That was not what the assertion was, it was you are unqualified to use
C as a language to descibe the algorithms you are describing in your
books.

C is a strictly defined language which has been around for years, not
only has it standards it has conventions. yet you ignore all those and
choose to do it your own way.

If you are using C you should do so rigorously, anyone who finds a
book with C code in it is going to try to use that code when they find
it doesn't work, it's not going to teach them anything, except they
just wasted money on a poor book.

If you choose to use your own ideas and conventions on how C should be
written then the your algorithms are lost in your personal ideas about
how C is or isn't a good language. Instead of looking at your
algorithms and thinking why they work or how they work, you look at
the code and you wonder why the standards and conventions were not
followed and why the code doesn't work.

If you don't follow any standards in C or conventions, then why use C
at all, use a pseudo code, because any advantages from using C go out
the window when you ignore the stanards and conventions that are used.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

[comp.lang.c] Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

Malcolm McLean said:

>(a bunch of stuff about atheism, all OT)

(a bunch of stuff about atheism, all OT)

Can we possibly take discussion of Malcolm's anti-atheism book (or
whatever it's about) someplace where it's on topic? Thanks.

>People see a book as something socially unacceptable.

I'm trying to imagine a context where this statement is reasonable,
without success.

--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
cbmanica(at)gma il.com |
----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
sdf.lonestar.or g | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.

[Richard Heathfield]

Christopher Benson-Manica said:

[comp.lang.c] Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Malcolm McLean said:

>>(a bunch of stuff about atheism, all OT)

>(a bunch of stuff about atheism, all OT)

Er, I didn't actually say anything about atheism. But yes, I know what
you mean.

Can we possibly take discussion of Malcolm's anti-atheism book (or
whatever it's about) someplace where it's on topic? Thanks.

It was more of a meta-discussion really - the intent was to encourage
Malcolm to fold my points back onto the discussion of his algorithms
book. But your point is nevertheless well-taken.

>>People see a book as something socially unacceptable.

I'm trying to imagine a context where this statement is reasonable,
without success.

Likewise. Especially here in comp.lang.c, which is one of the more
literate groups on Usenet.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Malcolm McLean]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Qv******** *************** *******@bt.com. ..

It was more of a meta-discussion really - the intent was to encourage
Malcolm to fold my points back onto the discussion of his algorithms
book. But your point is nevertheless well-taken.

I observed that the reaction to Basic Algorithms was almost identical to the
reaction to 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted). I wouldn't really want to
pursue the point further, but it is telling.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

>
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Qv******** *************** *******@bt.com. ..

>It was more of a meta-discussion really - the intent was to encourage
Malcolm to fold my points back onto the discussion of his algorithms
book. But your point is nevertheless well-taken.

I observed that the reaction to Basic Algorithms was almost identical
to the reaction to 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted). I wouldn't
really want to pursue the point further, but it is telling.

Indeed, but not necessarily for the reason you imagine.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btin ternet.comwrite s:

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Qv******** *************** *******@bt.com. ..

>It was more of a meta-discussion really - the intent was to encourage
Malcolm to fold my points back onto the discussion of his algorithms
book. But your point is nevertheless well-taken.

I observed that the reaction to Basic Algorithms was almost identical
to the reaction to 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted). I wouldn't
really want to pursue the point further, but it is telling.

Telling? How exactly is it telling?

The reasons for the reaction to your Basic Algorithms book have been
discussed at great length. They have nothing to do with the author.
I, for one, would have been delighted if you had written and published
a *good* Basic Algorithms book, one that presented well-written code
that both presented the algorithms clearly and demonstrated a strong
command of whatever implementation language you chose (it happened to
be C). Minor errors in such a work are nearly inevitable; time
permitting, I would have been glad to review the book and point them
out so they can be corrected.

I can't claim to speak for anyone else, but I'm sure that many other
people here feel the same way.

But when several people read a sample chapter and find numerous
blatant errors (code that doesn't even compile, algorithms that
exhibit undefined behavior, stubborn refusal to use the features of
the language), blaming others for their reaction is absurd.

I might be interested in discussing your atheism book, but I won't do
so here, except to suggest that if two books by the same author
receive similar reactions, you should consider the possibility that
the common factor is the author and his writing style, not some
conspiracy by others to denigrate the author personally.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Malcolm McLean]

"CBFalconer " <cb********@yah oo.comwrote in message
news:46******** *******@yahoo.c om...

Eric Sosman wrote:

>Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...

>>>
The objection is to a regular publishing such a book.
I have written a good book.

You have done no such thing. I have read good books, and I know.

... snip all further elucidation ...

I suspect you need go no further to make an enemy.

No, I'm happy to have my works condemned.
Even with Ivor Rockbrain it's more a case of "this post is pure abuse, I'd
better not tolerate it" than anything personal.

Keith's point that "the general consensus on clc is that the book is no
good, therefore it is no good" was false, and naturally I had to reply to
that, by giving the real explanation. But I don't blame people for acting as
they do. Kenny McCormack is essentially right when he sees most of the
bandwidth on clc as dominance games, but where he is wrong is in imagining
that life could be any different.

Life is a game, and the vast majority of people are opponents. not enemies.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Keith Thompson]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btin ternet.comwrite s:
[...]

Keith's point that "the general consensus on clc is that the book is
no good, therefore it is no good" was false, and naturally I had to
reply to that, by giving the real explanation.

[...]

I don't recall saying that. But if the general consensus on clc is
that the book is no good, you should seriously consider the
possibility that the general consensus may have some truth behind it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Ben Bacarisse]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btin ternet.comwrite s:

"CBFalconer " <cb********@yah oo.comwrote in message
news:46******** *******@yahoo.c om...

>Eric Sosman wrote:

>>Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...

>>>>
The objection is to a regular publishing such a book.
I have written a good book.

You have done no such thing. I have read good books, and I know.

... snip all further elucidation ...

I suspect you need go no further to make an enemy.

No, I'm happy to have my works condemned.

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be
persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."
Bob Park

This new twist you have thrown in (that because two things you have
written have drawn criticism, there might be something biased about the
criticism) has conveniently side-tracked the thread.

Since you complained about what you see as "trivial" criticisms, I
raised a bigger issue which you have not commented on, so I'll ask
yet again: what use is your (non) queue implementation? How could it
do anything but baffle a student? If you are worried about c.l.c
topicality, why not re-post on comp.programmin g where the wider issues
can be discussed?

--
Ben.