Issue with forward ranges which are reference types

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:05:54 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

> So, the question is, should a range-based function have the same  
> behavior for
> all forward ranges regardless of whether they're value types or reference
> types? Or should the caller be aware of whether a range is a value type  
> or a
> reference type and call save if necessary? Or should the caller just  
> always
> call save when passing a forward range to a function?
>

Probably not helpful, since the establishment seems to be set in their  
opinions, but I'd recommend saying ranges are always structs, and get rid  
of the save concept, replacing it with an enum solution.  The current save  
regime is a fallacy, because it's not enforced.  It's as bad as c++ const.

At the very least, let's wait until someone actually comes up with a valid  
use case for reference-based forward ranges before changing any code.  So  
far, all I've seen is boilerplate *RangeObject, no real usages.

-Steve