rationale: [] and ()

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:42:51 -0500, Simen kjaeraas  
<simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:

> Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>> But because of `opIndex' this assumption has been invalidated a long
>> time ago.
>
> No it hasn't. opIndex should still  be O(1), it just can't be enforced.
>

er.. make that O(lg(n)) :)  Essentially sub-linear.

-Steve