http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8946
Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #9 from Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> 2012-11-03 18:12:26 PDT --- > Then use canFind. canFind does exactly the same thing. The _only_ difference between calling find and checking whether the result was empty rather than duplicating find's implementation inside of canFind or any is the fact that a range is returned, and since that range is bound to be a relatively small type (almost always either an array or a struct with just a handful of member variables), the cost of that return is generally minimal, and there's a halfway decent chance that a move was involved rather than a copy, making it that much more efficient. If there's a measurable difference in efficiency between calling find (and checking for empty) and reimplementing find inside of canFind or any, then maybe we'll look at making it so that canFind and any don't call find. But the overhead of that return is so small (especially in comparison to the algorithm itself), that I'd be surprised if that ever happened. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
