Proposal: takeFront and takeBack

[Roman D. Boiko]

On Wednesday, 4 July 2012 at 08:31:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> But if the default is that there is no consumeFront, then it'll 
> only be there when the programmer determines that they need it 
> and defines it. So, the default is safe, but the option of 
> efficiency is there if the programmer codes for it.
OK, you sold it to me :) If some developer decides to use 
consumeFront for efficiency reasons, it should not be a problem 
to statically check hasConsume. What I was trying to avoid was 
code bloat at clients, assuming that they used consumeFront to 
have less code (one call instead of two). That would be a very 
different use case, and currently proposed design doesn't fit 
that use case. But it is really minor comparing to potential risk.