Transience of .front in input vs. forward ranges

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/6/12 2:44 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> To be honest, my biggest fear isn't that this proposal is rejected, but
> that we fallback as default on the input range = transient / forward
> range = non transient scheme, because we fail to come up with something
> better, or that the status quo is choosen (as both seems to me worse
> than the .transient proposal).

I think the simplification of input range = transient and forward range 
= not transient has a lot going for it. It is simple, easy to explain 
and understand, and builds on simple real-life examples (buffered input 
and singly-linked lists). Clearly adding a new notion to the soup makes 
for more expressiveness, but it also makes for more complexity and 
subtlety in support for niche ranges. This should not be neglected.

Andrei