On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 14:46:12 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hey all,
this is yet another post about phobos (missing) data structures
;-)
I know this has been discussed quite a bit - [1,2,3] to name a
few.
While it would be nice to have those "trivially to implement"
wrappers for some common use cases (map, unordered map, set,
multiset, ...) [1], this question focuses solely on dequeues.
It is great that we have DList, so having a circular buffer
(aka constrained queue) should be easy.
I do understand that baking this into DList (as e.g. Python
does) might (a) make things more complex or (b) add overhead
that isn't needed for every user.
However my question is: why is there not a neat wrapper around
DList with a capacity constraint?
Unfortunately we don't have inheritance for structs, but
proxying most methods should work too (see e.g [4]).
1) Has anyone else missed deque with capacity constraints?
2) Would such a wrapper fit into phobos?
3) Would you prefer (a) a wrapper around DList [4], (b) around
arrays [5] or (c) a "vanilla" circular queue?
(b is slower, but allows indexing)
Best wishes,
[1]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7162274/why-is-d-missing-container-classes
[2]
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]
[3]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
[4] http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/d8de9325e9a3
[5] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Queue/Usage#Faster_Version
Andrei is working on containers, but struggling with trying to
make them @safe without comprimising efficiency or utility,
AFAIK. Getting the containers done to his liking may require the
work on lifetimes(language supported ref counting) to be
complete. IIRC, there was a circular buffer on code.dlang.org
somewhere. I've been planning on adding one to my container
set(not on code.dlang.org yet) which would be implemented on a
contiguous array, with the contents wrapping around as items are
added/removed. I believe it's the most efficient approach.
Bit
