Old problem with performance

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:24:54 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> 
>> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> C++ ctors won't do the right thing if you use pointers, which is the
>>>> moral equivalent of using T[] inside MathematicalVector. If you 
>>>> refer to
>>>> std::vector instead, then that's a carefully-defined type that does 
>>>> have
>>>> the right copy constructor defined.
>>>  So where's the D equivalent of std::vector?  Phobos has nothing.
>>
>> It will.
>>
>>> I was under the impression that native arrays were intended to be used
>>> directly in D, something I rarely do in C++.  Certainly neither of the
>>> standard libraries has any hesitation about passing unadorned dynamic
>>> arrays around.
>>
>> Phobos2 plans to consistently consider T[] a range, not a full-fledged 
>> array. A range corresponds to a pair of iterators in STL.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Will T[] get front, back, empty properties, and popFront(), popBack() 
> methods?

Yes, not as methods, but as free functions.

> Perhaps, its the time T[] internal structure is changed!
> For example, ptr+size replaced by two pointers, some additional fields 
> added etc..

I agree. Walter said let's get ranges going and then we can look into 
optimizing the structure. Ranges seem to work really well so the 
structural change will follow soon.


Andrei