On 1/26/15 9:50 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 1/26/15 2:34 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/26/15 8:11 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:26:04AM +0000, bearophile via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Russel Winder:
but is it's name "group by" as understood by the rest of the world?
Nope...
[...]
I proposed to rename it but it got shot down. *shrug*
We still have a short window of time to sort this out, before 2.067 is
released...
My suggestion was to keep the name but change the code of your groupBy
implementation to return tuple(key, lazyValues) instead of just
lazyValues. That needs to happen only for binary predicates; unary
predicates will all have alternating true/false keys.
Seems that would please everyone.
Andrei
That's much more harder to implement than what it does right now. I
don't know how you'll manage to do the lazyValues thing: you'd need to
make multiple passes in the range.
The implementation right now is quite interesting but not complicated,
and achieves lazy grouping in a single pass.
Again, other languages return an associative array in this case.
I think our approach is superior.
Andrei
