On 05/21/2016 01:34 PM, Kagamin wrote:
But this leaves you with 2^^n growth, still exponential
He said that that won't happen any longer, the growth was because of the return type. Is that correct? -- Andrei
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d Sat, 21 May 2016 11:21:06 -0700
On 05/21/2016 01:34 PM, Kagamin wrote:
But this leaves you with 2^^n growth, still exponential
He said that that won't happen any longer, the growth was because of the return type. Is that correct? -- Andrei