Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:52:03 +0300, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:15:25 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
I've worked valiantly on defining the range infrastructure and making
std.algorithm work with it. I have to say that I'm even more pleased
with the result than I'd ever expected when I started. Ranges and
concepts really make for beautiful code, and I am sure pretty darn
efficient too.
There's a lot to sink one's teeth in, but unfortunately the code
hinges on a compiler fix that Walter was kind enough to send me
privately. I did document the work, but the documentation doesn't
really make justice to the extraordinary possibilities that lay ahead
of us. Anyhow, here's a sneak preview into the up-and-coming ranges
and their algorithms.
http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/~aalexand/d/web/phobos/std_range.html
http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/~aalexand/d/web/phobos/std_algorithm.html
Ranges are easy to define and compose efficiently. It was, however, a
pig to get a zip(r1, r2, ...) working that can mutate back the ranges
it iterates on. With that, it's very easy to e.g. sort multiple
arrays in parallel. Similarly, chain(r1, r2, ...) is able to offer
e.g. random iteration if all components offer it, which means that
you can do crazy things like sorting data that sits partially in one
array and partially in another.
Singly-linked list ranges are in, and to my soothing I found an
answer to the container/range dichotomy in the form of a topology
policy. A range may or may not be able to modify the topology of the
data it's iterating over; if it can, it's a free-standing range, much
like built-in arrays are. If it can't, it's a limited range tied to a
container (of which I defined none so far, but give me time) and it's
only the container that can mess with the topology in controlled
ways. More on that later.
Feedback welcome.
Andrei
Sweet!
One note - "move" has a precondition: "!pointsTo(source, source)".
Shouldn't it be "!pointsTo(source, target)"?
The following sentence doesn't sound well to me:
template isForwardRange(R)
"The semantics of a forward range (...) are the same as for a forward
range, ..."
Recursive definition? Should it say "are the same as for an input range"?
Whoa! I stack overflowed just re-reading that! :o) Thanks.
Andrei
