On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 01:31:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Unless there's something about the implementation that's tied
to the list itself, I would think that it would make more sense
to make it a generic algorithm, then it will work with any
non-random-access range, and it avoids needing to reimplement
it for similar circumstances. IMHO, it really only makes sense
to tie it to the container if the implementation itself needs
to be for some reason.
- Jonathan M Davis
All operations on collections are tied to implementation. Phobos
just intorduced range abstraction that hides iteration code (and
is still implemented by collection itself). Iteration is only a
small part of functionality that one expects from the data
structure. I'm against operation generalization, collections have
little in common besides basic semantics of insertion, they
should provide their own methods.
It is the lack of such methods that is more disheartening. And
the lack of cursor\iterator concept, wich maps well to mutation
semantics of lists\trees.
