http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5645



--- Comment #5 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> 2011-08-25 08:26:01 
PDT ---
Exactly. Slicing is an O(1) operation, but take(drop(range, 5), 3) is O(n)
unless the original range isSliceable. It's perfectly fine to do it, but
creating a function such as islice at least implies that it's efficient like
slicing is, which isn't generally true. I do have to say though, that it's
operations like that that make me wish that take's arguments had never been
flipped, so that you could do take(3, drop(5, range)), but I guess that we're
stuck at this point, and it made no sense for drop not to match take in regards
to the order of its arguments.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to