custom sorting of lists ?

[Boris-Barboris]

On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 01:31:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Unless there's something about the implementation that's tied 
> to the list itself, I would think that it would make more sense 
> to make it a generic algorithm, then it will work with any 
> non-random-access range, and it avoids needing to reimplement 
> it for similar circumstances. IMHO, it really only makes sense 
> to tie it to the container if the implementation itself needs 
> to be for some reason.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

All operations on collections are tied to implementation. Phobos 
just intorduced range abstraction that hides iteration code (and 
is still implemented by collection itself). Iteration is only a 
small part of functionality that one expects from the data 
structure. I'm against operation generalization, collections have 
little in common besides basic semantics of insertion, they 
should provide their own methods.

It is the lack of such methods that is more disheartening. And 
the lack of cursor\iterator concept, wich maps well to mutation 
semantics of lists\trees.