On 5 February 2012 09:22, F i L <witte2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks good to me so far ;-) > > First criticism I expect is for many to insist on a class-style vector >> library, which I personally think has no place as a low level, portable >> API. >> Everyone has a different idea of what the perfect vector lib should look >> like, and it tends to change significantly with respect to its >> application. >> > > I think it would be useful, especially to newcomers who are unfamiliar > with D's lib terrain, to have an officially supported "utils" library for > these higher-level structures. > > core // to the metal > std // low-level but useful > util // get the job done >
Precisely my thoughts too. Something like 'util' may produce comprehensive, very generic, standard constructs, but makes no guarantees that they are efficient, or the best possible implementation for your application/context.
