RFC on range design for D2

[Sergey Gromov]

Denis Koroskin <2korden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 5) I don't quite like names left and right! :) I think they should  
> represent limits (pointers to begin and end, in case of array) rather that  
> values. In this case, built-in arrays could be implemented as follows:
> 
> struct Array(T)
> {
>      T* left;
>      T* right;
>      size_t length() { return right-left; }
>      ref T opIndex(size_t index) { return left[index]; }
>      // etc
> }
> 
> The rationale behind having access to range limits is to allow operations  
> on them. For example,
> R.left-=n;
> 
> could be used instead of
> foreach(i; 0..n) {
>      R.pop();
> }

Now you stepped onto your own landmine.  :)  "R.left-=n" extends the 
range beyond its beginning with unpredictable consequences.  That's why 
such operations shouldn't be easily accessible.