multiple linked list implimentations

[idle]

Now that we've got the ability to use lists in maps...
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a few list implementations

SLL -vector (allocated on each add)
DDL -vector

SLL Block (allocated in blocks)
DLL Block

Reason I ask is that I was using the lists to abstract the map to make chains and ended up with a process memory usage of 1gb vs 3.5mb for the same with a SSL vector.

[freak]

The standard library can't be perfect for every scenario. If you have special needs, just write your own functions.

Besidest that, i don't think i understand a word you're saying anyway

[idle]

I was talking about abstracting a map to make a chained hash table

map Items
A -> list items
B -> list items

[netmaestro]

Besidest that, i don't think i understand a word you're saying anyway

Oh good so it's not just me! I was starting to worry.. no offfense idle

[srod]

Please add me to the wtf is he talking about club!

(Again, no offence idle!)

[idle]

no probably not talking the same language, "in your own word please describe" key words being "own words"
Don't you think it'd be a positive step for the language to facilitate a more complete list library considering that we can now mash things together?