http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8946
--- Comment #4 from Dimitri Sabadie <dimitri.saba...@gmail.com> 2012-11-03 14:35:35 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > > Ok, my argument wasn’t worth it I agree. But, why any would use such a > > function > where a simple loop and a test will do it? > > Because find is a simple loop? To not duplicate code? If you have liner search > then it's obvious (for me) to reuse it for exactly the same task. any > basically > gives you a bit less then find/countUntill (bool vs pointer-index) by doing > the > same amount of work. > > > it consumes more memory that we want. any does things we don’t want to IMHO. > > Simply not true. I'm not sure where this 'memory' argument comes from at all. > In fact it saves some code space by not duplicating the same code over again. > At best this could be an enhancement request (or better yet - a pull request) > if there is a soild proof that the resulting code is measurably _faster_. There’s a popFront() function, so why would it be the correct way to search? Reusing a « linear search » code is not a point here because we want to _find_ something. countUntil gives us the position of an element, find should give whether the element is or not in a range. It returns a range: why ? It’s clearly implementation-related, and we don’t care about that detail. I’ll propose a pull request because the simple fact there’s « find » and « any » is not good. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------