Difference between revisions of "Container Ideas"

From D Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Methods)
(Methods)
Line 96: Line 96:
 
| align="center" style="border-right: 2px solid;"|
 
| align="center" style="border-right: 2px solid;"|
 
| align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid;"|  
 
| align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid;"|  
| align="center"|  
+
| align="center"| void
 
| align="center"|  
 
| align="center"|  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 108: Line 108:
 
| align="center" style="border-right: 2px solid;"|
 
| align="center" style="border-right: 2px solid;"|
 
| align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid;"|  
 
| align="center" style="border-left: 2px solid;"|  
| align="center"|  
+
| align="center"| size_t
 
| align="center"|  
 
| align="center"|  
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 16:35, 6 March 2013

Variable Implementation

As the discussion on the mailing-list (Deque impl.) has shown the ideas about how the internals of the container should work differ. Not only for the general case but also for specific cases like small (<64) vectors. Another application for this are the mapping container. For some tasks a hashtable might be best suited for other a binary-tree. Sometimes even, the user might supply a even more used implementation for the given task.

Therefor I suggest a design that lets the user switch out the underlying implementation. To supply the implementation I see two possibilities. The first is to supply it as a template. The second is to supply it as an argument. The first possibility has the disadvantage that different underlying implementation introduce new types. On the plus side the compile can remove the delegation as it is static. The second possibility does not introduce a new type, this is at the cost of a vtable lookup for every operation. It also forces the range types to work for all implementations. This might lead to making ranges abstract class or interfaces. Therefor I prefer the template approach.

Benchmarking

Having different implementation for the same container raises the question when to use which. The answer to this is as complex as the usage of the container. Therefor I suggest an extensive benchmark suite that tests every method for with different payload sizes for different number of elements.


Methods

notconst const immutable notconst or const
exists means that name or type exists
Sequence Associative Special Access
Container Double Linked List(T) Single Linked List(T) Random Access(T) Map(T,S) Multimap(T,S) MapSet(T,S) Set(T) Stack(T) Queue(T) PriorityQueue(T)
Types RangeType exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists
cRangeType exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists
ElementType T T T S S S T T T T
const Elementconst(T)ype const(const(T) const(T) const(T) const(S) const(S) const(S) const(T) const(T) const(T) const(T)
KeyType size_t size_t size_t T T T T size_t size_t
Modify insertFront(T) void void void void
insertFront(K...) size_t size_t size_t size_t
insertBack(T) void void void void
insertBack(K...) size_t size_t size_t size_t
insertBefore(RangeType, T)
insertBefore(RangeType, K...)
insertAfter(RangeType, T) T
insertAfter(RangeType, K...)
insert(KeyType, T)
insert(KeyType, K...)
removeFront(size_t = 1)
removeBack(size_t = 1)
remove(KeyType)
remove(Range)
remove(ElementType)
clear()
Access front()
back()
opIndex(const KeyType)
find(const KeyType)
opSlice(const KeyType)
opSlice(const KeyType, const KeyType)
in bool bool bool bool
Properties length size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t
empty bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool
Storage capacity size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t
minimize exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists exists
reserve size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t
maxSize size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t size_t
growable bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool
packed bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool bool