On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 14:51:14 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 12:27:51 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
I am trying to use RedBlackTree container to maintain a set of
Elems, Elem being a non-trivial struct. The problem is that I
find the container hard to use.
<...>
So, now I have a working program unless I want to run a
unittest, in which case, it does not compile. I wonder what's
so wrong with the examples 3 and 4, and how do I get them to
compile regardless of compiler options?
On a relevant note, I find the unittests of RedBlackTree a bit
excessive even when they compile successfully. They seem to
test the integrity of the whole tree every time a tree
operation takes place, and that makes the unittests version of
my local code run too slowly. Is there a way to turn
unittests on only for user code and turn them off for the
standard library?
Ivan Kazmenko.
N°4 is clearly a bug in the implementation.
N°3, I'm not sure what is going on with the "put" bugs, but it
seems to be fixed in head.
In both case, one of the problems is that
"redBlackTree!less_data" seems to be taking the wrong overload,
which explains some of your problems. I'd use an explicit:
tree = new RedBlackTree!(int, less_data)(); //No surprises
In any case, yes, it is buggy.
Thank you for the answer. The explicit way indeed helps to
compile Example 3 (without unittests) using the official DMD
2.063.2 release.
So I should create an issue describing my problems with example 4
but not example 3? And perhaps a separate one for the slowdown
with unittests turned on. Right?
What about examples 1 and/or 2, can they be patched to work, too?
And if not, why?
