rationale: [] and ()

[Simen kjaeraas]

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:42:51 -0500, Simen kjaeraas  
> <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> But because of `opIndex' this assumption has been invalidated a long
>>> time ago.
>>
>> No it hasn't. opIndex should still  be O(1), it just can't be enforced.
>>
>
> er.. make that O(lg(n)) :)  Essentially sub-linear.

Ah, yes. Sorry.


-- 
Simen