GSoC-2011 project:: Containers

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 30.03.2011 10:27, schrieb KennyTM~:
> On Mar 30, 11 16:18, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 30.03.2011 01:55, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
>>> On 2011-03-29 14:50, dsimcha wrote:
>>>> == Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisProg at gmx.com)'s article
>>>>
>>>>> The fancier stuff would be nice, but we don't even have a
>>>>> doubly-linked
>>>>> list yet. We should get the simpler stuff sorted out before we get
>>>>> particularly fancy, not to mention that it's usually the simple stuff
>>>>> that gets heavily used.
>>>>
>>>> For the most part I agree, but a doubly linked list might be **too**
>>>> simple. Linked lists are so trivial to implement that I'd tend to
>>>> roll my
>>>> own that does exactly what I need with regard additional behavior on
>>>> insertion, etc. rather than wrapping a library solution to get these
>>>> features.
>>>
>>> A doubly-linked list is on the list of containers that every standard
>>> library
>>> should have or it's likely to be considered lacking. I can understand
>>> rolling
>>> your own for specific uses, but _I_ sure don't want to be doing that
>>> if I
>>> don't have to. If I want a doubly-linked list, I want to be able to just
>>> create a standard one and use it. C++, C#, and Java all have
>>> doubly-linked
>>> lists in their standard libraries.
>>>
>>> If no one else ever implements a doubly-linked list for Phobos, I'll
>>> probably
>>> do it eventually simply because it's one of the containers that is on
>>> the
>>> short list of containers that pretty much every standard library has.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> It may be feasible to enhance the single-linked list to support both
>> single- and double linking, via an additional template-parameter "bool
>> doubly" or something like that and some static-ifs in the implementation.
>> I once created a simple single/double-linked queue for D1 like that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - Daniel
>
> It is always possible to combine types together with 'static if', but
> the structure and interface is sufficiently different that doubly-linked
> list should better be a separate type.

Is it? It's just a few additional functions and the functions do some 
additional stuff (mostly handling prev-pointers) for double-linked 
lists. Much of the single-linked list code can (probably) be reused - so 
why duplicate code?