http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287



--- Comment #9 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2013-02-07 16:47:07 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> It seems the length attribute (and opIndex()) didn't get in this patch. I don't
> know if they are worth another ER.

I seemd to have skipped this part of the request. But you can open a new request for this.

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4287



--- Comment #10 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2013-02-07 18:14:58 PST ---
(In reply to comment #9)

> I seemd to have skipped this part of the request. But you can open a new request for this.

OK. The length attribute is useful, to know at what point of the appending you are...

But is adding opIndex() a good idea? It makes an appender a bit more similar to
an array. For some implementations Appender.opIndex() is O(ln x) instead of
O(1).

(And in the end what's the point of keeping both Appender and std.array.Array?
Isn't a well implemented Array (with a .data attribute) enough?).

Despite I think Appender.length is useful and I like it, at the moment I don't have a clear use case for it in my D2 code. So unless I or other people will need it, I think I will not open another ER for now. Thank you.

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