> On 2 Jul 2016, at 20:40, Jens Alfke <j...@mooseyard.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-users >> <swift-users@swift.org <mailto:swift-users@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> Why is endIndex one greater than the last valid subscript argument, rather >> than simply the last valid subscript argument? I’m sure there are great >> reasons for this, but I just can’t think of them myself. > > It’s hard to handle empty collections, otherwise. If endIndex were the last > valid subscript, then in an empty collection what would its value be? > Presumably it would have to point to one before the start, which is rather > weird because that’s never a valid index (in an int-indexed collection it > would be negative.) Even worse, endIndex is never reachable from startIndex, > so an iteration can’t simply continue until it reaches the endIndex. Instead > the Indexable type would have to implement a (cheap, constant-time) >= > operator to use as the test for an iteration. > > These are probably the reasons why C++ also uses the convention of a > collection’s end() pointing to one past the end.
Thanks Jens, that makes sense. An alternative to the current model would be to require an implementation of isEmpty, and in the case that it evaluates to true, startIndex and endIndex aren’t considered. That isn’t as clean as the current model though, and I don’t doubt that the core Swift team thought this out very well. > >> I’m implementing a binary tree and I want to implement >> BidirectionalCollection. Each index contains a (private) reference to the >> corresponding node in the tree. However, endIndex shouldn’t point to >> anything, and it makes things very complicated if I want a constant time >> implementation of index(before:). > > Have the tree object keep a pointer to its last node. That makes it cheap to > get that node as the ‘before’ of the last node. You’ll also have the benefit > of making endIndex() itself constant-time, whereas presumably it’s now O(log > n) since you have to walk down the tree to find it. You’re right, I need to keep a reference to the last node anyways to ensure constant time access to endIndex. This was a bigger issue when I implemented a singly linked list, but I was able to implement a nice workaround. > > Or alternatively, you could add a flag to your index type that indicates it’s > pointing to the end of the collection. Then the endIndex() really points to > the last node but has the flag set. I also did this before, but it made everything less elegant than it needed to be. Thanks for your suggestions, I’ll stick with keeping a reference to the last node. > > —Jens
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
