On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 04:24:09 UTC, surlymoor wrote:
>All my custom range types perform all their meaningful work in their respective popFront methods, in addition to its expected source data iteration duties. The reason I do this is because I swear I read in a github discussion that front is expected to be O(1), and the only way I can think to achieve this is to stash the front element of a range in a private field; popFront would thus also set this field to a new value upon every call, and front would forward to it. (Or front would be the cache itself.)
At the moment, I feel that as long as the stashed front element isn't too "big" (For some definition of big, I guess.), that built-in caching should be fine. But is this acceptable? What's the best practice for determining which range member should perform what work? (Other than iterating, of course.)
It's a time-space tradeoff. As you say, caching requires additional space to store the cached element. On the other hand, not caching means that you spend unnecessary time computing the next element in cases where the range is only partially consumed. For example:
import std.range: generate, take;
import std.algorithm: each;
import std.stdio: writeln;
generate!someExpensiveFunction.take(3).each!writeln;
Naively, you'd expect that someExpensiveFunction
would be called 3 times--but it is actually called 4 times, because generate
does its work in its constructor and popFront
instead of in front
.