Issue 1323

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday 08 January 2011 16:19:21 bearophile wrote:
> BlazingWhitester:
> > If 'in' operator was overladable, users would expect it to have some
> > known complexity.
> 
> Like O(n) for a linear search in an array.

opIndex is supposed to be restricted to n log(n), I belive (the complexity 
necessary to access an element in a balanced, binary tree). It can have lower 
complexity - like O(1) - but it's not supposed to have higher complexity. opIn 
is effectively the operator for checking whether you can index the given 
container with the given key/index. It's basically doing [key] and telling you 
whether it's there. So, it doesn't make sense that it would have lower efficiency.

This has been discussed before, and while some people would like to be able to 
use opIn at higher complexities, that's not the way that it's intended to be 
used, so we're not about to make it work that way for built-in arrays.

- Jonathan M Davis