On 06/20/2015 12:24 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/19/15 2:44 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/19/2015 11:37 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/19/2015 05:27 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/19/15 8:01 AM, "Ulrich =?UTF-8?B?S8O8dHRsZXIi?=
<[email protected]>" wrote:
If opAssign is allowed, a major point of functional data structures is
lost. Client code is so much better if rebinding is off the table.
I have the same instinct but not enough rationale. What would be an
example in favor of the argument?
I think he is just arguing for immutable by default. The obvious
counter-argument is: Show me the implementation of the
'length(T)(SList!T)' function for SList!T with disabled opAssign.
Bad example, you'd just use the range, I guess. :o)
Append?
Appending to a functional singly-linked list would necessitate wholesale
duplication,
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough, I meant append a list to a list, i.e.
concatenation. Then you only need to duplicate the first list, and
runtime is linear in the first list.
What I was getting at is that if things are not rebindable, you are left
with recursive functions as the natural iteration primitive, which you
have objected to in the past.
...
I still am confused as to where your vision aims; I'll reply to your
other message.
...
I am still similarly confused why non-rebindability is even considered.
