Why Strings as Classes?

[Denis Koroskin]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:30:07 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Denis Koroskin" wrote
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:29:33 +0400, superdan <super at dan.org> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> The D spec certainly doesn't make any guarantees about
>>>> the time/memory complexity of opIndex; it's up to the implementing  
>>>> class
>>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> it don't indeed. it should. that's a problem with the spec.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. You can't rely on function invokation, i.e. the following might
>> be slow as death:
>>
>> auto n = collection.at(i);
>> auto len = collection.length();
>>
>> but index operations and properties getters should be real-time and have
>> O(1) complexity by design.
>>
>> auto n = collection[i];
>> auto len = collection.length;
>
> less than O(n) complexity please :)  Think of tree map complexity which  
> is
> usually O(lg n) for lookups.  And the opIndex syntax is sooo nice for  
> maps
> :)
>
> In general, opIndex just shouldn't imply 'linear search', as its roots  
> come
> from array lookup, which is always O(1).  The perception is that x[n]  
> should
> be fast.  Otherwise you have coders using x[n] all over the place  
> thinking
> they are doing quick lookups, and wondering why their code is so damned
> slow.
>
> -Steve
>
>

Yes, that was a rash statement.