Transient ranges

[Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 at 17:27:17 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 May 2016 at 01:48:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 23:42:24 Seb via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> So what about the convention to explicitely declare a 
>>> `.transient` enum member on a range, if the front element 
>>> value can change?
>>
>> Honestly, I don't think that supporting transient ranges is 
>> worth it.
>
> I have personally wondered if there was a case for a 
> TransientRange concept where the only primitives defined are 
> `empty` and `front`.
>
> `popFront()` is not defined because the whole point is that 
> every single call to `front` will produce a different value.

That is a rather sound idea.