[Issue 15401] partialSort should accept two ranges

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15401

--- Comment #2 from Andrei Alexandrescu <and...@erdani.com> ---
(In reply to Infiltrator from comment #1)
> Once issue 15421 is fixed, this is a simple matter of
>     topN(l, r);
>     sort(l);
> 
> Which brings us to the question of: should partialSort(Range, index) be
> changed to call partialSort(r[0..n], r[n..$]) to reduce duplication or is
> there a large performance difference in the two topNs?

Affirmative.

--