to compose or hack?

[Jon Degenhardt]

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 01:44:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> This is pretty minimal, but does what I want it to do. Is it 
> ready for inclusion in Phobos? Not by a longshot! A truly 
> generic interleave would properly forward everything else that 
> the range supports (like `length`, `save`, etc).
>
> But it got me thinking, how often do people roll their own vs. 
> trying to compose using existing Phobos nuggets? I found this 
> pretty satisfying, even if I didn't test it to death and maybe 
> I use it only in one place. Do you find it difficult to use 
> Phobos in a lot of situations to compose your specialized 
> ranges?

I try to compose using existing Phobos facilities, but don't 
hesitate to write my own ranges. The reasons are usually along 
the lines you describe.

For one, range creation is easy in D, consistent with the pro/con 
tradeoffs described in the thread/talk [Iterator and Ranges: 
Comparing C++ to D to 
Rust](https://forum.dlang.org/thread/diexjstekiyzgxlicnts@forum.dlang.org). Another is that if application/task specific logic is involved, it is often simpler/faster to just incorporate it into the range rather than figure out how to factor it out of the more general range. Especially if the range is not going to be used much.

--Jon