The new, new phobos sneak preview

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-04-13 04:20:32 -0400, Lars Kyllingstad 
<public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> said:

> ...except that my example, and indeed any range produced by sequence, 
> recurrence, etc. are bounded at one end. Thus the term "infinite range" 
> is more precise, and fits in well with the mathematical terms "infinite 
> series" and "infinite sequence". Just not "infinite" alone. :)

Indeed.

And since the thing in the argument is indeed a range, I'd use infinite 
alone in the function name. That way, if you build something which 
isn't a range but still represent a sequence, it can have this part of 
the interface in common.

In a language that doesn't support overloading (such as C or 
Objective-C), I'd be in favor of keeping the "range" suffix to 
differenciate the function from other functions applying to other kinds 
of arguments. In D, or C++, which support overloading, I'm in favor of 
skipping the argument type suffix.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/