Ranges longer than size_t.max

[Peter Alexander]

On Saturday, 29 December 2012 at 02:14:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2012 02:18:36 Peter Alexander wrote:
> I'd be very strongly inclined to go with #4 and just say that 
> anyone who
> actually cares about numbers that large should use 64-bit. 
> Needing ranges of
> length greater than uint.max is definitely not the norm, and I 
> would expect
> people caring that much about computational stuff to be using 
> 64-bit anyway,
> since odds are they'll need the memory. Allowing for length to 
> be anything
> other than size_t is extremely annoying for generic code.

Sorry, I don't think I was clear on what the issue is.

I'm already assuming 64-bit. What I'm saying is that 64-bit 
sometimes isn't even enough (for example in the case of a 
permutations range). I'm asking if allowing length to return 
BigInt would be reasonable.