http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4492
--- Comment #3 from David Simcha <[email protected]> 2010-07-21 19:16:35 PDT --- Two points: 1. Retro is not inefficient. For random access, there's the overhead of translating the index to length - index, but this is negligible in most cases (though I wouldn't use it in super performance critical numerics code). In the case of front(), popFront(), etc., all it does is forward front() to back(), popFront() to popBack() and vice-versa. These are virtually guaranteed to be inlined by the compiler, resulting in truly zero overhead for non-random access. 2. Sorry for the misunderstanding on what you expected takeBack to do. However, now IIUC takeBack would be unimplementable on non-random access ranges, unless the range had a length **and** you performed an O(n) seek. If you can only access the front and back element of a range at any given time, you can't get the Nth element from the back. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
