I'm back

eskimo jfanatiker at gmx.at
Thu Nov 15 11:33:00 PST 2012


On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:56 -0800, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> I don't like duplicating a whole bunch of algorithms in
> transalgorithm.

If its true what you say, that usually there is no difference in
efficiency, than there is no need for any duplication. But it is
certainly better to offer an standard implementation (if needed) than
having every user do the duplication.

I know that coding by convention is discouraged, but some conventions
work pretty well. I would suggest for any new ranges that provide a
transient front to have them called something like byLineTransient,
byChunkTransient(). So it is obvious from reading the code what you deal
with. (I am not suggesting renaming the already existing methods, I just
picked the first examples I could think of)

I personally would be very happy, if all algorithms who can accept
transient fronts do and that mostly algorithms for which it is obvious
that they can not support them, don't support them. In conjunction with
documentation & maybe a naming convention, I think this is already
pretty good and at least in my very humble opinion, good enough.





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list