More flexible sorted ranges?

[Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sunday, 2 November 2014 at 15:13:37 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> I have often arrays that are sorted, and sometimes I'd like to 
> append items to them. So I'd like to write something like:
>
>
> SortedRange!(Foo[], q{ a.x < b.x }) data;
> data ~= Foo(5);
> immutable n = data.upperBound(Foo(2)).length;
>
>
> This means having an array of Foos as sorted range, and 
> appending an item to it keeping the sorting invariant (so in 
> non-release mode the append verifies the array is empty or the 
> last two items satisfy the sorting invariant), and this allows 
> me to call functions like upperBound any time I want on 'data' 
> without using any unsafe and unclean assumeSorted.
>
> Is this possible and a good idea to do?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

To make it compatible with std.container, you should call it 
Sorted(T, pred) and make it a accept any std.container, whose 
opSlice returns a RandomAccesRange. A Sorted(Array!U, pred) 
wouldn't itself be a RandomAcessRange but a container and it's 
opSlice should return a SortedRange.

The algorithms that work on arrays and currently return a 
SortedRange could retur n a Sorted!(U[], pred) instead.