On 30 March 2011 10:38, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2011-03-30 01:18, 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. > > To what end though? I don't think that that would save you much. While some > of > the implementation would be the same, so much of it would be different, > that > you'd practically have two complete types defined in one template. At that > point, you might as well create a separate class/struct. It's just simpler > to > have them separate, and I don't see any real gain in combining them. Having > both is great, since there are times that you want one and times when you > want > the other, but having both SList and DList (or whatever it would be called) > as > separate types makes sense. > > - Jonathan M Davis > Just a question that popped into my mind, how does D's std.container handle cyclic lists? using static if? -- // Yours sincerely // Emil 'Skeen' Madsen
