Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

KennyTM~ wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> "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
>>>
>>>  From the limited posts I've had the time to read, it seems this 
>>> topic has probably been already beaten to death, but how about "tail" 
>>> instead of "toe".
>>>
>>> And instead of the "yellow" primitive, why not "intersect(r,s)" , 
>>> "intersection(r,s)", "r.contains(s)" , "r.intersect(s)" , etc.
>>>
>>> Wasn't "intersect" the original?
>>
>> Intersect is good but doesn't reveal an important detail: the 
>> operation is not commutative.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> .cross ?
> .across ?
> .join ?
> .onlyAlso ?
> 
> By the way, how does "yellow" not commutative?

In the forward ranges realm, if you start from the wrong range, you
never get to compute the "yellow".

Andrei