From: jason r tibbetts <tibbettj@...>
Date: 2005-06-30T06:01:29+09:00
Subject: Re: shift vs. slice!(0) and others

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.