What's the reasoning for the current behavior of add/remove range?
This is actually something that I had almost forgotten about in my GC
design, so I thank you for reminding me of it :D After a preliminary
think-through of the design, I would end up going with the first
possibility, so that
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 14:20:58 UTC, Orvid King via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
What's the reasoning for the current behavior of add/remove
range?
I think the behaviour only stems from the simple implementation
rather than reason.
After sleeping on the question, I realise there's no way around
I was working on a Treap implementation to accelerate the GC
add/remove root/range functions when I realised it is not
specified how multiple calls to addRange with the same parameter
p (and possibly different size parameter,) should be handled.
Currently the case for add/remove root is if
