I'm back

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/14/12 11:18 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 06:43 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 11/14/12 7:29 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> But since this isn't going to be fixed properly, then the only solution
>>> left is to arbitrarily declare transient ranges as not ranges (even
>>> though the concept of ranges itself has no such implication, and many
>>> algorithms don't even need such assumptions), and move on. We will just
>>> have to put up with an inferior implementation of std.algorithm and
>>> duplicate code when one*does* need to work with transient ranges. It is
>>> not a big loss anyway, since one can simply implement one's own library
>>> to deal with this issue properly.
>>
>> What is your answer to my solution?
>>
>> transient elements == input range && not forward range && element type
>> has mutable indirections.
>>
>> This is testable by any interested clients, covers a whole lot of
>> ground, and has a good intuition behind it.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> That is a very imprecise approximation. I think it does not cover any
> ground: The day eg. 'array' will require this kind of non-transient
> element range is the day where I will write my own.

What would be an example where array would have trouble with using this 
definition?

Andrei