[Issue 15401] partialSort should accept two ranges

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15401

--- Comment #3 from Infiltrator <lt.infiltrator at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Andrei Alexandrescu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Infiltrator from comment #1)
> > Once issue 15421 is fixed, this is a simple matter of
> >     topN(l, r);
> >     sort(l);
> > 
> > Which brings us to the question of: should partialSort(Range, index) be
> > changed to call partialSort(r[0..n], r[n..$]) to reduce duplication or is
> > there a large performance difference in the two topNs?
> 
> Affirmative.

Sorry, do you mean affirmative to how to implement partialSort(Range, Range);
or affirmative to changing partialSort(Range, index) to call the (Range, Range)
version;
or affirmative to there being too large of a performance difference between the
two versions of topN?

--