On 11-05-2012 23:41, SomeDude wrote:
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.
Then you probably didn't read the replies to the other (sub-)thread
about it.
--
- Alex
