The new, new phobos sneak preview

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
> Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2009-04-12 11:09:51 -0400, Lars Kyllingstad 
>> <public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> said:
>>
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
>>>>> I think isInfinite!() should be called isInfiniteRange!(). The 
>>>>> current name is, in my opinion, too general.
>>>>
>>>> I'm undecided about this (and similar cases). isInfinite sits inside 
>>>> std.range, so std.range.isInfinite is clear and 
>>>> std.range.isInfiniteRange feels redundant. On the other hand, I 
>>>> don't want to use too common symbols because then the user will be 
>>>> forced to prefix them whenever they clash.
>>>
>>> I'm not too worried about name clashes, I just think it sounds wrong. 
>>> If R is a range with infinitely many elements, I think it's more 
>>> correct to say "R is an infinite range" than to say "R is infinite".
>>>
>>> As an example of what I mean, let the range R be the sequence 1, 1/4, 
>>> 1/9, ...:
>>>
>>>    alias Sequence!("1/(n*n)", 1) R
>>>
>>> Then, isInfiniteRange!(R) should obviously yield true. From a 
>>> mathematical standpoint, I think the result of isInfinite!(R) is less 
>>> obvious. Yes, the range has infinitely many elements, but none of 
>>> them are infinite, nor is their sum infinite.
>>
>> Perhaps it should be renamed to isUnbounded then.
> 
> ...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. :)
> 
> -Lars

Finally! I was waiting for someone to make this point. "Bounded" would 
be closer to "having values within a finite interval".

Andrei