On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:30 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Marshall Clow wrote:
How about this:
You can be more succinct:
I'm not really sure that being succinct is a goal.
[heading Complexity]
All of the variants of `all_of` and `all_of_equal` run in ['O(N)] (linear) time; that is, they compare against each element in the list once. If any of the comparisons fail, the algorithm will terminate immediately, without examining the remaining members of the sequence.
All variants of `all_of` and `all_of_equal` have ['O(N)] (linear) complexity. If an element fails the comparison, the algorithms return immediately. Otherwise, all elements in the input sequence are compared exactly once.
I like it!
[heading Exception Safety]
All of the variants of `all_of` and `all_of_equal` take their parameters by value or const reference, and do not depend upon any global state. Therefore, all the routines in this file provide the strong exception guarantee.
All variants of `all_of` and `all_of_equal` provide the strong exception guarantee.
If I could explain why - instead of just asserting it - I think it would be better. Dave has pointed out that my explanation here is incorrect.
[heading Notes]
* `all_of` and `all_of_equal` both return true for empty ranges, no matter what is passed to test against. When there are no items in the sequence to test, they all satisfy the condition to be tested against.
[heading Empty Ranges]
All variants of `all_of` and `all_of_equal` always return true for empty ranges.
This is a case where a bit of rationale adds to the explanation, I think. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki