Ranges

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal100 at gmail.com)'s article
> > Also, while the fact that you need interfaces to specify a vtable layout is an
> > implementation detail, I would argue that, in close to the metal languages, it
> > does more harm than good to try too hard to prevent implementation details from
> > leaking into the language abstractions.  Otherwise, what would be the point of it
> > being a close to the metal language?  The fact that, for templates, one does not
> > need to specify vtable layouts and for OO you do justifies the asymmetry between
> > templates and OO.  Interfaces for templates would just add boilerplate and make
> > explicit something that is already implicitly knowable and checked at compile time
> > anyhow.
> here I disagree. it sometimes makes sense to let implementation details
> leak into your abstractions when you gain something by it, like
> performance (e.g. "Worse is better" principle) but I don't see how this
> applies here. what is there to gain by doing this compromise in this case?
> there is no added performance since it's all compile-time, there is no
> additional flexibly like with run-time duck-typing.

Simplicity and DRY--you only need to specify what the compiler doesn't already know.