Proposal for SentinelInputRange

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-28 12:29, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> And you were just claiming that the lexer checked the sentinel type in only
> one place. If that's indeed the case (and I think that it's quite close to
> being true if it isn't true), then you _wouldn't_ need to use static ifs like
> this in many places. So, which is it? If you need to check the sentinel often
> enough that using static ifs is a problem, then it's probably not buying you
> much of anything over checking empty anyway.

You pick a sentinel that you need to check for anyway, i.e. null or eof. 
But if you don't manually add the sentinel there's nothing that says 
that the sentinel will be there, and therefore you weed to check for 
empty as well.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg