On 6/14/20 2:25 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2020 at 16:26:17 UTC, Avrina wrote:
The situation also applies to the only tuple implementation in D. If
you are proposing a new type with emphasis on reducing the footprint
of the tuple then I don't see a problem with that. Changing the
existing tuple implementation would be problematic.
Presumably any such change would be made backwards-compatible. So
Tuple.opIndex and Tuple.expand would still return elements in the order
specified by the user, even if that order is different from the internal
storage order.
Indeed.
