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