Tricky semantics of ranges & potentially numerous Phobos bugs

[deadalnix]

Le 16/10/2012 21:21, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:07:01 H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> Perhaps mark ranges with an .isTransient property (which can be an enum
>> so it doesn't waste any space), and range-based functions that require
>> non-transient ranges will refuse to work with a transient range. Or
>> alternatively, switch to a different implementation that takes
>> transience into account (which may be slower, etc., but the important
>> thing is to do it right -- after all, D's motto is safe by default,
>> unsafe if you ask for it).
>
> Not a bad idea, though it's still arguably a bit disgusting to potentially
> have to check for that all over the place. Inevitably, most functions won't
> check, and ByLine _still_ won't work. Yes, Phobos would presumably end up
> checking in most cases, but I suspect that little else will. We arguably have
> way to many things to check about ranges as it is. So, I'd be far more tempted
> to just change ByLine to use opApply rather than adding the extra complication
> of isTransient to the standard library just for this one use case.
>

I have to agree here. Even if I see several uses outside byLine, this is 
known that most code will not take that into account. Adding a property 
isn't going to help.