than the O(1) operation of adding 2 items to a array.
Not very familiar with the language, but the code appears to create a new array by concatenating three arrays, which means copying all the elements; how is that O(1)?
Well, read in good faith and assume, if your reading results in an obvious contradiction, you probably assumed something that wasn’t what the author intended: in this case, that arrays are immutable
Well, if you're dealing with immutable arrays, then concatenating is even more expensive on average, because you either end up copying everything (which is O(n)), or the array isn't really an array (and you start paying for various forms of indirection).
We, get this: what if you’re using mutable arrays?
#whoa
I understand that reading is hard and avoiding needless posturing in order to display a personally-appraised superior intellect is harder, but reading in good faith requires that you put in some effort and not knee-jerk
You buffoon, you hydroencephalitic harrumpher, if your pasting on my statement leads to an obvious contradiction, you try again in good faith to find a better syntax tree. If you can, you ask a polite follow up question, not blow hard
Not very familiar with the language, but the code appears to create a new array by concatenating three arrays, which means copying all the elements; how is that O(1)?