Complexity nomenclature

[CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 13:58:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 10:46 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/3/2015 5:27 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Now this primitive may have three complexities:
>>>
>
> Looks exaggerated, innit? The fact of the matter is people 
> choose collections based on the complexity of their operations 
> all the time. "I need to insert and remove at the front, so 
> I'll use a list here." Or: "I need random access, I'll use a 
> vector" etc.
>
>
> Andrei

My personal preference would be not to have the complexity in the 
names, as I prefer shorter/concise names. Typically when I am 
writing code using containers of any sort I will check the 
documentation to determine what the cost of the operations I need 
is and base my choice off of that. I would think (hope) most 
others do this too.  However, I don't have a strong objection to 
the what is being proposed.

Would you have an insertLogarithmic ( insertInverseAckerman :o) 
too?