RFC: naming for FrontTransversal and Transversal ranges

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Robert Jacques wrote:
> Although, I'm starting to see an interesting story: Here are containers. 
> They have value semantics and are simple to use/prototype with. When 
> you're done, you can move to ranges in the performance critical sections 
> in order to boost performance. And some things, like high performance 
> lock-free queues and stacks, might only exist as ranges.

I'm off the phone with Walter. He made a golden point: matrices are not 
general containers! They are mathematical entities and probably are 
indeed best off with value semantics (if efficiency issues can be taken 
care of).

But matrix semantics are not necessarily generalizable to generic 
container semantics. I think that's a good insight. So probably worrying 
about matrices when discussing containers is a red herring.


Andrei