Bartosz Milewski seems to like D more than C++ now :)

[Dmitry Olshansky]

20-Sep-2013 17:50, Szymon Gatner пишет:
> On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 13:32:47 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> 20-Sep-2013 15:01, Szymon Gatner пишет:
>>> On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 10:47:52 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> A text-book example of self-destruction(?).
>> Ranges (in particular Input/Forward) are not much above encapsulation
>> of iteration, hence must contain that state required to iterate said
>> elements. Which leads to the point that indeed containers have no
>> business being ranges by themselves.
>>
>> The bottom line is:
>> sort(container[]);
>> vs
>> sort(container);
>>
>> Where I hardly see how coupling containers with algorithms can bring
>> even slightest benefit.
>
> OK so it seems we agree. I never said that containers should be ranges.
> Ranges are abstraction on iterators and that is it. Single container can
> have multiple ranges existing at the same time. State is attached to
> ranges not containers. And most importantly ranges are mutable always,
> even if underlying container isn't. Ranges are meant to have state. No
> idea what you mean by self destruction.

Then it may be a misunderstanding on my part. I was referring to your 
previous reply. Where I basically said:

 >> Can't a container be a range as well?
 >>

 >For Christ sake no, no and no.

[... Because that would be ...]

 > TL;DR: Suboptimal, unnatural and error prone are keywords.

Then your question - Why would it be suboptimal?

Which your second reply seem to clearly explain: extra state placed 
where it doesn't belong. I can't easily correlate your two answers as 
they look as if the second one answers questions of the first.
Anyhow we are in agreement here.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky