Complexity nomenclature

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/04/2015 03:18 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 08:37 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 01:27:42 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> These complexities must be reflected in the name of the primitives.
>>
>> I don't see why. IMO, names should convey what the function does, not
>> how it does it. Complexity is usually put in the function documentation
>> in Phobos when it's not constant, especially for range based ones, I
>> don't see a reason to change that.
>
> Complexity is part of the semantics, and in my design names and their
> semantics go hand in hand. -- Andrei
>

Which is sensible. But in any given context, some parts of the semantics 
are usually abstracted away. Sometimes one wants to abstract over 
running times of called methods. ("This function calls this other 
function at most O(n) times.")