I think that a doubly linked list is useful, actually it one should
implement most things so that the can work on any object that has prev
and next pointers, and give a templated default list wrapper. That is
what I did for singly linked lists, and it works well.
Often one wants to avoid allocating lot of small wrappers...
About the containers I did propose the persistent ones, because they
are useful, and currently there aren't any, whereas for more classic
dcollection is there (even if not part of phobos).
Fawzi
On 30-mar-11, at 01:55, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On 2011-03-29 14:50, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis ([email protected])'s article
The fancier stuff would be nice, but we don't even have a doubly-
linked
list yet. We should get the simpler stuff sorted out before we get
particularly fancy, not to mention that it's usually the simple
stuff
that gets heavily used.
For the most part I agree, but a doubly linked list might be **too**
simple. Linked lists are so trivial to implement that I'd tend to
roll my
own that does exactly what I need with regard additional behavior on
insertion, etc. rather than wrapping a library solution to get these
features.
A doubly-linked list is on the list of containers that every
standard library
should have or it's likely to be considered lacking. I can
understand rolling
your own for specific uses, but _I_ sure don't want to be doing that
if I
don't have to. If I want a doubly-linked list, I want to be able to
just
create a standard one and use it. C++, C#, and Java all have doubly-
linked
lists in their standard libraries.
If no one else ever implements a doubly-linked list for Phobos, I'll
probably
do it eventually simply because it's one of the containers that is
on the
short list of containers that pretty much every standard library has.
- Jonathan M Davis
