Thread overview
[Issue 4348] New: std.container.SList append
June 19, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4348

           Summary: std.container.SList append
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs@eml.cc


--- Comment #0 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2010-06-19 12:52:03 PDT ---
This shows how you can append to a std.container.SList:

import std.container: SList;
void main() {
    auto l = SList!int(1, 2);
    l.insertAfter(l[], 3);
}


But the standard D syntax too can be supported, despite it's O(n):

import std.container: SList;
void main() {
    auto l = SList!int(1, 2);
    l ~= 3;
}


(The member function "insertFront" might be named "prepend", that is shorter , equally readable and contains no upper case letters).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
June 19, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4348


Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@metalanguage.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrei@metalanguage.com


--- Comment #1 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@metalanguage.com> 2010-06-19 14:51:02 PDT ---
~= is only for containers that can implement it in time independent of the size of the container. Writing s.insertAfter(s[], value) hints the user that the cost is higher (i.e. proportional to the length of s[]).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
June 19, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4348



--- Comment #2 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2010-06-19 15:20:42 PDT ---
Answer to Comment 1: thank you for your answer, I didn't know about this rule.

In arrays the append can require a full array copy, so it can be O(n), but it's
(hopefully) O(1) on amortized time.

If this rule is present and well established then you can close this bug report (the suggestion about the "prepend" name is for you, but you can ignore it if you don't like it).

Another possibility is to find a compromise: instead of writing something hairy
like:
s.insertAfter(s[], value)
You can use:
s.linearAppend(value)
That is less noisy and equally clear in its complexity :-)

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
June 20, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4348


bearophile_hugs@eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------