Am 30.03.2011 10:27, schrieb KennyTM~:
On Mar 30, 11 16:18, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 30.03.2011 01:55, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
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
It may be feasible to enhance the single-linked list to support both
single- and double linking, via an additional template-parameter "bool
doubly" or something like that and some static-ifs in the implementation.
I once created a simple single/double-linked queue for D1 like that.
Cheers,
- Daniel
It is always possible to combine types together with 'static if', but
the structure and interface is sufficiently different that doubly-linked
list should better be a separate type.
Is it? It's just a few additional functions and the functions do some
additional stuff (mostly handling prev-pointers) for double-linked
lists. Much of the single-linked list code can (probably) be reused - so
why duplicate code?
