jason r tibbetts
6/29/2005 9:01:00 PM
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> Eric Mahurin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>This sure would be nice for easy and high performance implementations
>>of circular and gap buffers.
>
>
> Please do explain,
> nikolai
>
"circular buffers" == deques, which are "circular" arrays--incrementing
past the end takes you to the beginning, etc.
But back to the original suggestion that delete_at() be implemented the
same way as shift(). The former makes it clear that the index in
question is being removed altogether, which will result in a
down-shifting of the array elements. shift() neither implies nor
requires that same constraint.