A safer File.readln

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 01/25/2017 02:12 PM, Jens Mueller wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 14:18:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 01/25/2017 12:58 AM, TheGag96 wrote:
>>> On Monday, 23 January 2017 at 13:18:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/17 5:44 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>>>>> If, instead of increasing its size by 100%, we increase it by a
>>>>> smaller
>>>>> percentage of its previous size, we still maintain the amortized O(1)
>>>>> cost (with a multiplier that might be a little higher, but see the
>>>>> trade
>>>>> off). On the other hand, we can now reuse memory.
>>>>
>>>> Heh, I have a talk about it. The limit is the golden cut,
>>>> 1.6180339887498948482... The proof is fun. Anything larger prevents
>>>> you from reusing previously used space. -- Andrei
>>>
>>> Andrei, could you link this talk? Thanks!
>>
>> Not public. -- Andrei
>
> Have you done measurements on the matter?

Affirmative.

> Because I'm not sold on the
> idea.

Wasn't selling anything.

> To me at this point this is just a theoretical observation.

No.

> There
> are also arguments indicating it is less useful.

That is correct.

> Any numbers on how it
> affects e.g. memory usage?

Depends on the application. You'd do good to collect your own.


Andrei