[Monotone-devel] Re: using empty() instead of size()

[Bruce Stephens]

"Derek Scherger" <address@hidden> writes:

> Even if size does have to traverse a list to count the elements one would
> expect that traversing an *empty* list should be reasonably quick.

Sure, but presumably the extra cost is traversing a non-empty list to
find that it's not empty.  One would hope that an inlined size()
together with a good optimizing compiler might be able to avoid the
cost, but perhaps that's not feasible.