On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:32:10 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
>
> And her
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:32:10 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in
favor of
ranges.
I think the opA
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor of
>>> ranges.
>>>
>>
>> I think the opApply should take precedence.
>> The o
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor of
ranges.
I think the opApply should take precedence.
The only reason to define opApply is because foreach uses it.
Ranges on the other hand are us
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
>
> And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor of
> ranges.
>
I think the opApply should take precedence.
The only reason to define opApply is because foreach uses it.
Ranges on the other hand are useful in other si
And here I was thinking perhaps opApply should just be dumped in favor
of ranges.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:12:52 -0500, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
My Tree implementation iterates over all the
elements without recursion.
Yes, but looking at your implementation, you have parent pointers, which
are
necessary anyhow for R
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:47:23 -0500, dsimcha wrote:
> > I was playing around with dcollections today and it reminded me of a
> > subtle
> > unresolved issue. This has been brought up here before, but always
> > buried
> > deep in
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:47:23 -0500, dsimcha wrote:
I was playing around with dcollections today and it reminded me of a
subtle
unresolved issue. This has been brought up here before, but always
buried
deep in some other thread. I think it deserves its own thread for some
serious debate.
On 15/11/2009 20:47, dsimcha wrote:
2. Some things can't be iterated over as efficiently w/o control of the call
stack. For example, iterating over trees w/ control of the call stack is easy
and efficient. Iterating without control of the call stack requires a heap
allocation for an explicit s
I was playing around with dcollections today and it reminded me of a subtle
unresolved issue. This has been brought up here before, but always buried
deep in some other thread. I think it deserves its own thread for some
serious debate.
What should take precedence when a class or struct defines
11 matches
Mail list logo
