getNext

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 7/9/12 12:04 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Monday, 9 July 2012 at 15:48:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 7/9/12 11:35 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>> If something is both an input range and an output range, then sure, it
>>> can have that capability. But being able to write to something is
>>> _orthogonal_ to whether you can read from it.
>>
>> That is the case right now. The point is, with your design you need to
>> add something extra to allow writing to elements of a single-pass
>> range. So your design does not simplify things as much as it might seem.
>>
>> Andrei
>
>> With your design you need to add something extra to allow writing to
>> elements of a single-pass range.
>
> If that's the case, I'd hate to tell you this, but _unless_ you're
> planning on removing the notion of input/output ranges (and perhaps
> adding single-pass/multi-pass), you're doing it wrong. :-)

Given the smart-aleck nature of the comment I'd say s/hate/love/.

> That capability is simply /not needed/ when your /only/ contract is that
> something is an input range.

As I mentioned, "input range" is a misnomer. Think "one-pass range". The 
range can be written or not, and a multi-pass range (including 
random-access range) is also a one-pass range.


Andrei