Dithering about ranges

[Steve Teale]

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> I don't quite understand this. Ranges are a very simple abstraction for 
> iteration. They show how other iteration abstractions either were too 
> unsafe and verbose (C++/STL) or too bare-bones (C# iterators, Java 
> iterators, singly-linked lists used by functional languages), so in that 
> regard I think they hit the spot pretty nicely. Ranges are useful, but 
> hardly a be-all end-all. Thinking of building an application entirely of 
> ranges... I can't quite parse that.
> 
> 
> Andrei

Andrei,

I'm still waiting to read the definitive article about ranges. Does this exist at present? It's nice to have something like an RFC, not just a new version of a standard library without warning, and just depend on the comments. As Walter has I think said, comments always lie!

Steve