On 3/27/12 7:46 PM, James Miller wrote:
For a start, the documentation is pretty unclear, The table for the
container primitives is poorly explained, and the complexity columns
wraps on most screen sizes, making understanding them a nightmare.
I plan to redo that table. A screenshot would help - thanks!
The
explanations for what things are, and what they do is pretty unclear,
and since its not completely standardized over the different
containers, you end up with some truly mindboggling documentation. A
good example is this: "c.removeAny() - Removes some element from c and
returns it.", what some element at random?
Actually removeAny is one of the better ones. It just removes an element
from the container that is most convenient to the container.
Or does it take an argument
that isn't show like what is implied by this: "c.stableRemoveAny(v) -
Same as c.removeAny(v), but is guaranteed to not invalidate any
iterators.", but that doesn't seem right because SList has "T
removeAny() - Picks one value from the front of the container, removes
it from the container, and returns it." which doesn't take a value.
This is endless confusing, and I ended up consulting the unittests in
order to understand what the hell was going on.
That's a mistake in the documentation, stableRemoveAny does not take a
value. I just fixed it in
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/9d7168be5fc91da74231ab86d989ac6013280830.
Then there are the strange input and output types/value for the
arguments. For example, why does SList.linearRemove return an empty
Range on the Take!Range overload, and an empty Range on the Range
overload?
It's simple - generally removeRange returns the portion after the
deleted part. The structure of SList dictates that removing a range
means removing through the end. Removing a Take!Range naturally will
return some potentially nonempty range.
In fact, why are any of the functions accepting and
returning /Ranges/ which are internal types specific to the container?
Ranges are not internal to containers, they are the way containers are
manipulated.
Why don't they all just take a type that can be converted to a range?
I don't see the advantage of doing so.
As is stands, you end up with ridiculous requirements like:
//Remove a single element from an SList, given its "index"
size_t index = 5;
SList!int s = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
auto r = s[0..index-1];
auto r1 = take(r, 1);
s.linearRemove(r1);
assert(equal(s, [0,1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9]);
Which could be replaced with an overload for linearRemove that looks like this:
/** Removes the element at index, return false if the element
could not be removed **/
bool linearRemove(size_t index){...}
We can add overloads that use index-based operations, but generally you
already have a range and would like to do a positioned delete. If you
find yourself doing a lot of indexed operations in a SList, you chose
the wrong containers.
Almost all of the "primitives" seem to be based around adding or
removing from the front or back of the container, but there's no
random-access removal.
Why the quotes? More containers are likely to perform removal at an end
efficiently than randomly positioned.
And since the behaviour is Container specific,
its impossible to figure out what a function does anyway! For example,
SList's linearRemove(Range) just removes the front elements from the
container, not obvious.
I'm not sure I get this. Might be a bug somewhere. The linearRemove
primitive is supposed to do the same for all containers - remove a range
in linear time.
Is there any reason why things are the way they are? Because all I see
are people getting exited about ranges and operator overloading and
not really thinking about what a useful set of features any given
container should have.
Proposals for improving things are always welcome.
P.S. I'm happy to help out improving the documentation, but I have no
idea what these things are supposed to do in the first place...
Just ask.
Andrei
