On Friday, August 13, 2010 14:19:34 David Simcha wrote: > But this would lead to boilerplate and inefficiency in cases where slicing > isn't needed. Ranges that don't have a better way of dealing with slicing > would have to have lowerLim and upperLim variables and add lowerLim every > time the range was indexed. While I think the overhead of this is > reasonable if the alternative is an algorithm simply not working, I don't > think it's reasonable to pay for it (both in execution efficiency and > boilerplate code) when it's not going to be used.
Maybe, random access ranges are just too tied up with arrays in my head, but I don't see why it would make sense for a random access range _not_ to have slicing like arrays do. In fact, now that I think about it, it surprises me that that's not a requirement of random access ranges. Now, it wouldn't be all that hard to have a string mixin or a template or somesuch which produced boiler-plate slicing code in order to reduce code duplication, but I really don't understand why random access ranges wouldn't have slicing. Ideally, _any_ range would, it just wouldn't be efficient to take anything but the whole slice for anything that isn't random access. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
