ch-ch-changes

[Jason House]

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
> > I think algorithm signatures should not be made unnecessarily
> > complex, and instead rely on other utilities for complex behavior.
> > For example map!("a*a")(r1,r2) can be implemented as
> > map!("a*a")(chain(r1,r2))
> 
> Yah, good point. I'm ambivalent about that. On one hand composition is 
> nice, on the other hand map is likely to be used very often so a 
> shortcut is welcome. What do others think?

Very often with multiple ranges? I wonder how well dmd will inline/optimize when composing simple things like that.

 

> > I also see in the docs that the structs returned are documented,
> > complete with all the functions that they include.  I'd hope that we
> > could somehow document this stuff simpler...
> > 
> > Maybe the following? outputRangeType!(r) map!(fun)(r)
> > 
> > note also how accepting only one range also makes documenting the
> > return type easier ;)
> 
> I'm waiting for that "auto" return feature to work with ddoc...

That really has very little to do with the point I was trying to make. The return type will conform to a certain range type, which is all I will ever want to know as a user.