On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 13:59:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/04/2015 01:05 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Also maybe a simpler idea would just be to annotate the the
operations
with there complexity with UDAs.
Great idea, will keep it in mind. Thanks! -- Andrei
Yeah. If the primary reason to have stable and linear and whatnot
in the names is so that introspection can be used on them, then
UDAs will work fine for that. Where it's stickier is if you're
just calling them in generic code, since then you have no
protection against the complexity changing when the container
being used changes. But pretty much no one is going to be wanting
to use stuff like stableLinearInsert or stable.linear.insert in
their code instead of insert. So, while having the complexity be
part of the API has some serious advantages, it's not
user-friendly for normal use, whereas the UDAs put you somewhere
in between not having the complexity in the API at all and
forcing everyone to type out the complexity every time they use a
function.
- Jonathan M Davis
