On 05/03/2015 07:56 AM, "Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnci?=
<per.nord...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Saturday, 2 May 2015 at 04:08:04 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Interesting idea. I have defined a simple algorithm below to see how
it could work (my skipped() function instead of uniq()).
That's a bit above my current D experience to decide.
What about just tweaking uniq() for now to propagate SortedRange and
leave the rest for later?
The implementation seems trivial to me. If others don't object, I
suggest you open an enhancement request.
> Or will this break existing uses of uniq?
Other than the fact that uniq may return SortedRange, I don't see any
issue. If an existing piece of code was explicitly checking whether a
certain range object was UniqResult, no code should be affected.
Another possibility is to return UniqResult in both cases but expose the
special SortedRange member functions on it if the input were
SortedRange. (Again, trivial.)
Ali
