Attachment: Download

Issue Description:

Currently calling reversed() on a bi-directional and random-access collections returns a ReversedCollection and ReversedRandomAccessCollection respectively. This is because the view can be placed over the underlying collection at no cost – it's just a question of transforming the index appropriately and then accessing the underlying base collection.

For sequences and forward-only collections, however, this can't be done. So for these, the contents are read into an array and then that array is in-place reversed. But the second step is unnecessary – the array, once created, could just be returned wrapped in a ReversedRandomAccessCollection. As well as efficiency, this would have the benefit of making these methods more consistent across the board in what they return.