On Saturday 08 January 2011 16:19:21 bearophile wrote: > BlazingWhitester: > > If 'in' operator was overladable, users would expect it to have some > > known complexity. > > Like O(n) for a linear search in an array.
opIndex is supposed to be restricted to n log(n), I belive (the complexity necessary to access an element in a balanced, binary tree). It can have lower complexity - like O(1) - but it's not supposed to have higher complexity. opIn is effectively the operator for checking whether you can index the given container with the given key/index. It's basically doing [key] and telling you whether it's there. So, it doesn't make sense that it would have lower efficiency. This has been discussed before, and while some people would like to be able to use opIn at higher complexities, that's not the way that it's intended to be used, so we're not about to make it work that way for built-in arrays. - Jonathan M Davis
