Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Bill Baxter]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Pablo Ripolles <in-call at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hmm.  One semantic issue I have is that the tip usually refers to the
>> infinitessimal point at the end.  Not a thing with substance.  I'm
>> having trouble feeling like I'm going to get an item back when I look
>> at "x.tip".  Head has huge history being used for the item at the
>> front of a list, so I think that's much less likely to cause anyone
>> looking at D code to scratch their heads.  It will be obvious what it
>> means even in relative isolation.  head/tip will often appear without
>> "toe" in forward range algos.  So you need to be able to easily
>> recognize what "tip" means without seeing that "toe" to give context.
>> Toe on the other hand will probably almost always appear with his
>> mate.
>>
>> Ooh, another scale thing, but a head is obviously a very different
>> scale than a toe.  A foot is closer to the same scale.  Maybe
>> head/foot is better than head/toe.  The connection between retreating
>> / feet is stronger that retreating / toes, too!
>>
>> --bb
>
> neither the tip of the tail, nor the tip of the wing, nor the tip of the flagellum are really infinitesimal...
>
> I'm not sure whether I understand your reasoning about the "tip" / "toe", I interpreted that "tip" could be a substitute of "toe"...

Nope.  I'm pretty sure that the discussion is about replacing "head"
with "tip".  There's an expression "from tip to toe".

But I think your confusion (or is it mine?) about which end would be
the tip is pretty damning.

> my problem with foot is that there is necessarily more than one.

There's also more than one toe.  But I guess you thought that "toe" was out.

> perhaps in the world of the anatomy of the chordates we can find something... dunno, "coccyx" is pretty weird but at least there is only one.

Well, there is only one tail... but it's what functional guys call
everything but the head, so Anrdrei wants to avoid it.

--bb