http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7013
--- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-07-09 10:24:39 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > You're right, I looked at the code for BigInt, every time you do +=, it > allocates a new underlying buffer. That's pretty inefficient if you're using > these operations in an inner loop. On the other hand I think a mutable integer is not what most people expect, and it can cause some undesired side effects (and bugs). That's why I suggested to introduce a specific syntax that allows you to manage bigints as mutable buffers where max performance is needed, and keep their behavour clean on default. Generally I think it's better to perform tricky optimizations only on explicit request. Some possible alternative syntaxes: x.mutable += y; x.mulAcc(y); x.mutate!"+"(y); -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------