Why aren't Ranges Interfaces?
Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Fri Jun 26 12:26:56 PDT 2015
Thanks for the reply! I understand the reasoning now.
On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 18:46:03 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> 2) interfaces have an associated runtime cost, which ranges
> wanted to avoid. They come with hidden function pointers and if
> you actually use it through them, you can get a performance hit.
How much of a performance hit are we talking about? Is the
difference between using an interface and not using one
noticeable?
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list