Complexity nomenclature

[Andrea Fontana via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 4 December 2015 at 01:37:33 UTC, 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.

I'm agree. It sounds like a bad idea.

And who knows, maybe someone will discover a more efficient way 
to implement "insertAfter" or the collection itself... We should 
change its name?