On 01/31/2013 09:46 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 07:34:52 UTC, d coder wrote:
To be honest deque can be implemented far better if random access as in
indexing, removal and such is dropped.
As other people too pointed out, Deque is indeed a random access
range, so indexing operator is a must. Insert/Remove too are good to
have. Array implementation in the std.container too implements remove
and insert.
Another small issue is that this Deque implementation is a Class.
std.container provides all the containers as structs. So for sake of
consistency, we should implement Deque too as a struct.
Regards
- Puneet
Quite frankly, I'm bringing more and more into question the fact that
everything in phobos are structs, especially considering the "no
default constructor" problem.
The containers in std.container pretty much emulate final classes via
pointers to payloads anyways. Not doing it via classes only brings
problems.
And even if you succeed in coding the damn thing correctly (Objects
like DList had so many bugs I consider it virtually unusable). The end
result is subtle user bugs when passing containers, if they have not
been initialized yet. It creates an ambiguity in behavior if or if not
the container is initialized (modification to the container inside the
function may or may not modify the outside container).
The only argument I see in favor of structs, is the possibility of
having a deterministic memory model (std.container.Array). I don't
think D's *generic* containers should do that though, IMO. It also
brings lots of problems, just for a specific use case.
Long story short, I'd say that unless you have a damn good reason to
stay with structs, use classes. It has easier user semantics and much
less room for implementation bugs.
(PS: Argument also applies to all the PRNGs.)
I can only agree
