http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10762
--- Comment #5 from [email protected] 2013-08-06 03:41:22 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > 2) Should we optimize iota(start,end,inc) in the case that I supports integer > multiplication? That is to say, if n is an integer, and n*inc (or inc*n) is a > type that can be added to values of type C, then we could potentially return a > random access range wherein opIndex returns start + i*inc as long as the > result > < end (we can throw a RangeError if result !< end). This might be a nice > optimization for things like BigInt in some cases. I think providing RA is possible, but at the same time, I doubt there is much usecase for it. iota's prime usecase is iteration I mean. If we can make it happen, then great I guess, but I don't really see it as essential. > 3) If start+inc is *not* supported, but start++ is, then should we support > iota(start,end)? > > 4) If start+inc is *not* supported but start-- is, and end < start, should we > support iota(start,end)? I think that for "iota(end)/iota(start, end)", the constraint should be that "++"/"--" works. For "iota(start, end, step)", then the constraint should be "+=". So I to answer your question, I think that "Yes", we should support iota(start, end) as soon as ++/-- is available. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
