Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/09/2010 07:57 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-06-08 17:41:22 -0400, "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kja...@gmail.com>
said:
Now, my favorite way of dealing with this: Where would I look for a
binary heap if I wanted one? I would think of it as a container, and
thus
check std.container. If it was not there, I would use the search
function
to find it. I can invent reasons, but it's mostly grounded in learned
names and categories.
And if you were accustomed to the STL, you'd just look for a binary heap
header to include instead of trying to philosophize about which category
of things it fits best. That's why I suggested "std.binaryheap" earlier.
(Could be "std.binheap" if you want it short.)
I don't think this will scale. There are quite a few data structures out
there, I'm afraid we'll have too many modules too soon.
Andrei
On the other hand, I don't think we want a 5Mb module, either. There's a
very large number of potential containers, once you include all the
esoteric ones.
(std.algorithm has the same problem, of course).
It's a difficult tradeoff. I hope you're able to come up with a
reasonable rationale.
