Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Dave]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gadn7c$oe5$4 at digitalmars.com...
> Pablo Ripolles wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>> In wake of the many excellent comments and suggestions made here, I made 
>>> one more pass through the draft proposal for ranges.
>>>
>>> http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/~aalexand/d/tmp/std_range.html
>>>
>>> There are some comments in red illustrating some uncertainties (not 
>>> all), and the names of the primitives have been updated. Bicycle shed 
>>> galore! But don't forget to comment on the reactor as well :o).
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>>
>> Well, it looks prety clean! :D
>>
>> However, I'm not completely sure I like these "head" and "toe" names 
>> selection.  It projects to much on it, doesn't it?  couldn't it be more 
>> neutral?  perhaps more conceptual?  I haven't been able to read the last 
>> days' comments... but my last impressions were that this "head" was not 
>> the best choice.
>>
>> If "head" is the header item, why not call it "header"?
>>
>> If ''toe" is the last item, why not call it "last"?
>>
>> Other comment goes for the "done" property, for the seek of consistence 
>> shouldn't it better be named "isDone"?
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> Thanks. One problem in coding with first and last was that sometimes the 
> code looks unnatural, especially when your range exposes a few more 
> functions. In a stream parser, dealing with the "first" element is not the 
> most natural way to think of it. But I agree that first and last are 
> definitely palatable and natural most of the time. But then again, 
> shouldn't any design have the inevitable cutesy that makes it memorable? 
> :o)
>
> Andrei