On 16-05-2012 17:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:47:23 -0400, Tobias Pankrath <pa...@tzi.de> wrote:
Andrei you are against an in-operator for array, because it would
provide a uniform interface for arrays and AA with different
complexity. Is contains with different complexity for ranges and for
SortedRange not the same?
No it's not the same.
It all depends on what the function advertises as its complexity.
It's OK for a function that advertises O(n) complexity to be applied to
a type that's optimized into O(lgn) complexity.
But it's NOT OK for a function that advertises O(lgn) complexity to be
applied to a type that requires O(n) complexity.
It all depends on what the existing situation is. Generic code is
written against the documentation, because it doesn't know what's
actually going to be implemented underneath.
-Steve
People aren't using 'in' in generic code at all, so I'm not sure this
comparison makes sense anyway.
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
a...@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
