Complexity nomenclature

[BLM768 via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 22:17:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Either of those would be better than stableLinearRemove or 
> stable.linear.remove. The UDAs would be more documentation 
> friendly, though being able to pass around template arguments 
> could be valuable for the cases where you're trying to enforce 
> specific complexity requirements.

It should be possible to unify the template and UDA forms. 
Assuming a template supportsComplexity(func, complexity) that 
determines whether a function or method has the specified 
complexity UDA (or a "faster" one), it's not hard to implement 
something like this:

void removeWithComplexity(T, complexity)(T collection, size_t 
index) if(supportsComplexity!(T.remove, complexity) {
     collection.remove(idx);
}

List!int list;
//...
list.removeWithComplexity(Complexity.linear, 3);

---

Of course, this implementation has issues with collection 
operations which are defined as UFCS functions (as opposed to 
methods), but it should be possible to get around that issue.