Has the ban on returning function nested structs been lifted?

[Simen kjaeraas]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:05:59 +0100, spir <denis.spir at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess something similar should be the base design of ranges. "Range of  
> X" could simply mean "lazy sequence of X", an on-demand array (lol); and  
> that would be the return type of every function returning a range. The  
> complexity (of filter-ing, map-ping, find-ind) could be hidden inside  
> the object, not exposed in the outer type.

Such a scheme precludes the usage of structs as ranges, though. It would
require virtual functions.


-- 
Simen