Intended behavior of std.range.cycle?

Vlad Levenfeld via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Fri Sep 5 03:41:20 PDT 2014


On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 11:43:28 UTC, monarch_dodra 
wrote:
> *Should* cycle be negatively index-able? Personally, I don't 
> think so. And even if it could, it has been proven non-size_t 
> indexing is not well supported at all. It was de-facto chosen 
> after the "iota-map fiasco" that all ranges be indexed with 
> size_t and nothing else...

Can you elaborate on what the problem was? I'm curious as I've 
recently implemented a DSP module that uses ranges with 
floating-point slicing and, other than having to define a second 
kind of length (I call it "measure" so I can still have a 
discrete length when I need it), it seems to work well enough so 
far. It'd be bad if there were some unseen fiasco waiting for 
me...


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list