On 06/25/2013 10:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 21:42:17 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/25/2013 09:21 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 19:33:32 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/25/2013 07:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/25/13 4:47 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Good point, but takeExactly currently is not a better choice due to its
poor quality of implementation.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/range.
d#
L2904>
What's wrong with it?
Andrei
It either has all the overhead of take or does not properly propagate
the underlying range's capabilities.
I don't think you're taking into account what take does.
I think I do.
The primary case when
takeExactly doesn't use take is when the range doesn't define length, in
which case, the best that you can get out of it is a forward range, and
that's exactly what it does.
On the other hand, when take is used, it _does_ propagate the original
range's capabilites appropriately. take was specifically engineered to
avoid wrapping ranges when it doesn't need to, so it shouldn't result in
any any extra overhead if it isn't necessary.
Take will check the wrapped range's 'empty' repeatedly. takeExactly does
not need to do that at all.
It only does that with assertions. ...
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/range.d#L2648
