Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Sean Kelly]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> 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".

There's also a song entitled "tiptoe through the tulips," which will 
probably be stuck in my head for the rest of the day now.

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

And what was wrong with first/last?


Sean