On 05/16/2016 11:35 PM, Alex wrote:
Background: Say, I have objects of kind E, which operate on structs of kind M. The problem: if an action is done on a struct, say M42, there should be also some action done on other structs, which have some relation to M42, but neither the operating object, nor M42 is aware of them (and the action which is required), as this would break encapsulation. So, I choosed another approach: There are some describing objects, say of kind B and G, which hold a specific information (a single property) of all existent M structs. These objects know which "neighbors" are also affected in case of some action of E on the struct M42 and can perform appropriate actions on them, at least on the contained property. The problem which is still unsolved: objects of kind E operates on structs M randomly. For this goal, they have to save the information between their actions, on which structs they are interested in, to report the ordinal number to the describing objects. The saving of ordinal numbers with minimum computational costs (nogc, even no construction of iota-structs, etc) is crucial.
I can't say that I understand the setup you describe. But are you sure that iota has a higher cost than (ab)using a slice?
I mean, they're pretty much exactly the same: an offset, a length, and an increment operation. If inlining doesn't fail, they should perform the same, no?
And if iota does perform worse for some reason, I feel like there must be a way to implement something that matches the speed of the slice without inheriting its ugliness.
