Proposal for SentinelInputRange

Andrei Alexandrescu SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Thu Feb 28 07:42:16 PST 2013


On 2/28/13 8:44 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> 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.

auto range = assumeWithSentinel(input);

:o)

I'm only half-joking - the awesomeness of assumeSorted suggests we could 
reuse the pattern elsewhere.


Andrei


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list