for ranges

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 1/23/15 4:44 AM, ixid wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 January 2015 at 16:41:49 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> Playing with factorial implementations, as you do. I had a D
>> implementation using ulong. Not sensible obviously since overflow is a
>> bit of a problem. But the code worked, as did the tests. Now converting
>> to BigInt and…
>>
>> The standard explicit iteration form uses a loop:
>>
>>     for(i; 2..n+1)
>>
>> for n = 0 or 1 this loop doesn't loop since the range is [,). However
>> for BigInt:
>>
>>     for(i; two..n + one)
>>
>> the loop starts at 0 and just keeps on going. This is clearly not good.
>>
>> Am I having a mental breakdown or is this a real bug?
>
> In general it feels as if BigInt needs more work as it doesn't
> work with simple generic code in too many cases. Templates get
> confused by invocation with a literal and a BigInt for example
> when it should have a single type. Literals feel too strongly
> typed or too weakly implicitly convertible.

This is not a BigInt problem, it's an inconsistency with foreach range. 
See my earlier post.

-Steve