20-Sep-2013 18:13, Szymon Gatner пишет:
On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 14:04:06 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> Can't a container be a range as well?
>>
>For Christ sake no, no and no.
[... Because that would be ...]
> TL;DR: Suboptimal, unnatural and error prone are keywords.
Then your question - Why would it be suboptimal?
Which your second reply seem to clearly explain: extra state placed
where it doesn't belong. I can't easily correlate your two answers as
they look as if the second one answers questions of the first.
Anyhow we are in agreement here.
Mind that "Can't a container be a range as well?" was not from me.
Yup, but it was what I was answering ... when you asked about why would
it be suboptimal... A container that is a range at the same time is
suboptimal, that's all.
Still, moving computation over a range from for loop body into the range
implementation (like filtering) incurs no performance penalty and has
additional benefits of composability and maintainability. Do you mean
that is suboptimal?
I made no statement on this I think. It shouldn't be ineffective.
The only problem with it that I foresee is that in order to take
advantage of vectorized SIMD in CPU it could be harder to auto-magically
vectorize such code for compiler.
For that matter I think e.g. providing explicitly a range of float4
fells like a better way to go.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
