On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 01:37:33 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 01:27:42 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:These complexities must be reflected in the name of the primitives.I don't see why. IMO, names should convey what the function does, not how it does it.
I'm agree. It sounds like a bad idea.And who knows, maybe someone will discover a more efficient way to implement "insertAfter" or the collection itself... We should change its name?
