Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Bruno Medeiros]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros 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
>>
>> """
>> All ranges satisfy certain invariants outlined below. (r is an object 
>> of a range type R.)
>> """
>>
>> By "object" you actually mean struct no? Struct instance to be even 
>> more precise.
>>
>>
>> Also, some more on important bike shed issues:
>>     for (; !src.done; src.next)
>>     {
>>         tgt.put(src.head);
>>     }
>>
>> As a matter of coding style conventions, I would say that using the 
>> implicit property function call feature on a function that changes 
>> state is *bad* style, and surely hope the community would agree on that.
> 
> I sure hope they won't agree to an unsupported assertion.
> 

It's unsupported because it is not an assertion, but more of a 
subjective opinion, like most coding style conventions (indentation, 
bracing, etc.). I don't like seeing "src.next" if 'next' isn't either a 
field, or a function which doesn't change any significant state.


>> So "src.next" would be must better as "src.next()" as "src.next" 
>> really just makes me cringe.
> 
> With me it's the opposite, particularly after I've written and stared at 
> a few hundreds of "()"s due to a compiler bug.
> 
> 
> Andrei

I'm not imagining what that situation would be, could you explain a bit 
more?


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D