Ranges

[Yigal Chripun]

dsimcha wrote:
> == 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.

simplicity - have one syntax to remember instead of two.
DRY - concepts are already present and used, see the isXXXRange 
templates. I didn't add anything beyond that.