multiple-item traversal ranges

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/30/11 7:05 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> On 3/30/2011 7:56 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> Jonathan M Davis:
>>
>>> Andrei is currently against making range-based functions work with
>>> opApply
>>> because of the resulting increase complexity of the implementations.
>>> They were
>>> really meant for ranges, not opApply. That doesn't necessarily mean
>>> that it's
>>> a guaranteed "we don't want to do it," but it's definitely questionable.
>>
>> There is no "perfect design" here. I have suggested a compromise,
>> where few basic functions (array(), walkLength()) work with every kind
>> of iterable. Othrwise opApply becomes a third-class functionality and
>> users need to write their own opApply-related functions.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> Agreed. Andrei's opinion is understandable if he thinks he'd have to
> implement these features and has better things to do. I'd be willing to
> do the implementation work if the relevant compiler bugs/enhancements
> (2443, 4707, and maybe support for inlining delegates) get fixed so I
> can do it right.

I'm much more worried about the long-term costs associated with such an 
approach.

Andrei