On 06/23/2010 10:42 PM, David Simcha wrote:
On 6/23/2010 11:36 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/23/2010 10:22 PM, David Simcha wrote:
Should we just redefine random access ranges such that they must either
have a length or be infinite?
I think that's reasonable. If a finite range didn't define length, it
would be easy to find it in O(log n) by binary search.
I guess you're assuming some method of signaling on out of bounds
access, such as throwing an exception?
Yah. What I'm basically saying is, if you can decide in O(1) what
element at position n is, there's no way you can't write (inside the
range) some sort of a test that gives you the length in logarithmic
time. A range can't be at the same time random-access, finite, and
unable to figure its bounds. Or so I believe :o).
Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
