On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:29 AM, David Simcha <[email protected]> wrote: > I've thought some more about how to support slicing in the case of > take(someInfiniteRange, someNumber) and I think it would be a good idea to > require infinite random-access ranges to support an advance() function. > This would basically be like slicing, but only change the beginning of the > range, not the end (since there is no end of an infinite range). Calling > infiniteRange.advance(N) would be equivalent to calling > infiniteRange.popFront() N times, except that advance() would have O(1) time > complexity. Sound good? Any alternative suggestions? > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >
O(1) advance() is not always possible (not that it means your suggestion is bad). _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
