> But perhaps it should be more clear. What if there were some additional > structured fields for each doc entry, like "performance guarantees" and "see > also"?
That's a good idea. I've found "See Also" sections useful in man pages, for example. And if performance guarantees are part of the semantics of a function, then it's better for it to be documented in the docstring to let people know without having to do complexity analysis on the source. Carson On Nov 10, 10:40 am, Michael Gardner <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 10, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Carson wrote: > > >> rseq O(1), reverse O(n). > >> peek O(1), last O(n). > >> pop O(1), butlast O(n). > >> get O(1), nth O(n). > > > I don't see that in the documentation... If these functions aren't > > "collapsed", then it's better if at least (doc reverse) says something > > about O(n) and "see rseq". > > The docstring for reverse does say "not lazy", which implies at least O(n). > > But perhaps it should be more clear. What if there were some additional > structured fields for each doc entry, like "performance guarantees" and "see > also"? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
