On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 20:35:53 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
Except that it would break the generally expected algoritmic
complexity of in,
so it'll never happen ( O(n) for arrays, whereas the worst
case that would be
acceptable would be O(lg n) - e.g. what a binary tree could
achieve).
- Jonathan M Davis
'in' isn't useful in generic code. How it's defined (return
type and parameter type) depends entirely on the type being
operated on (who says it's an AA? Or a map-like type at all?),
so it cannot be used generically in any sensible way.
As such, maintaining any specific algorithmic complexity for it
serves no purpose IMHO.
I think this has been discussed several times already, and you
still haven't convinced any of us.
