On Monday, 4 June 2012 at 21:07:02 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
For example, one by
one would allow ignoring key encoding (and thus using
multiple encodings
simultaneously just as easily as single).
It's just as easy with the whole thing. Treat it as bytes ;)
Except when equivalent keys in different encodings should be
treated as equal. But now I can see that my counter-example is
only partially valid - walklength could be used instead of
length (more expensive, though), and dchars everywhere.
Another counter-example is searching for strings with specified
prefix. One-by-one fits better here. I didn't understand whether
such use cases are supported at both API and implementation
levels.
