On Tuesday, 4 October 2022 at 18:18:41 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/4/22 10:59, Riccardo M wrote:
> The inherent reason for `remove` to cancel previous capacity
and
> requiring new allocations is exactly to prevent overwriting
data that
> could be owned by something else?
Yes.
A related topic is how the "end slice" never loses that
capacity:
void main() {
auto a = [ 1, 2 ];
auto b = a;
assert(a.capacity != 0);
assert(b.capacity != 0);
b.length--;
assert(b.capacity == 0);
assert(a.capacity != 0); // <-- Preserved
}
Aside: .capacity is an expensive operation that requires some
levels of table lookups in the druntime. A data structure would
benefit a lot if it kept its own capacity as a member variable.
Ali
Wonderful. Thanks for the insight,
