What about putting array.empty in object.d?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jacob Carlborg" <doob at me.com> wrote in message 
news:jkc321$25pv$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 2012-03-21 04:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Hear me out... ;)
>>
>> Using empty seems to be emerging as the recommended practice for testing
>> whether an array is empty. And that makes sense as it's consistent with
>> other ranges. I'm all in favor of that.
>>
>> But I've found myself avoiding empty (and instead doing arr=="" or 
>> checking
>> the .length) just because empty doesn't work on arrays unless you've 
>> already
>> imported std.array (unless my knowledge is out-of-date, which is possible
>> considering how fast things are moving ;) ). So doing "arr.empty" is a
>> little messy and increases my cognitive load, whereas arr=="", arr==[], 
>> and
>> arr.length == 0, "just work".
>>
>> Considering that:
>>
>> 1. Arrays are (from the user's perspective) a built-in type that doesn't
>> need to be explicitly imported.
>>
>> 2. Calling 'empty' is (for good reason) the recommended standard practice
>> for checking if arrays are empty.
>>
>> ...Perhaps it would make sense for empty(T)(T[] a) to be moved into
>> object.d, or at least somewhere it will always be implicitly included? 
>> Being
>> a standard part of arrays and input ranges already effectively elevates
>> "empty" to a relatively special status anyway.
>
> Sure, why not. Do we want an "any" function as well, that is the opposite?
>

I think "!array.empty" is plenty sufficient. Besides, there are other good 
uses of "any" that have been brought up before.