8 Apr
2009
8 Apr
'09
1:51 p.m.
AMDG Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I suspect that r1 | join(r2) | join(r3) will be less efficient than join(r1,r2,r3), because the former will lead to double checks of which range that is being iterated, unless there is some clever way to avoid that. But the | joined(r1,r2) syntax or whatever is fine with me.
The hard part is the implementation of increment()/decrement().
Right, but what I was trying to say was that join(r1, r2, r3) is not significantly different from r1 | join(r2) | join(r3). If we can implement one efficiently, we can implement the other efficiently. In Christ, Steven Watanabe