Generality creep

[ag0aep6g]

On 28.03.19 18:04, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/28/19 9:16 AM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>> On 28.03.19 14:05, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Then some ranges are not meant to be assignable.
>>
>> Should Phobos be compatible with those ranges?
[...]
> It seems to me 
> going with these is the right thing:
> 
> * Input ranges are copyable and assignable, and have pointer semantics 
> (all copies refer to the same underlying position, and advancing one 
> advances all others).
> 
> * Forward ranges are copyable and assignable, but distinct copies refer 
> to distinct positions in the range such that advancing one does not 
> advance the others.
> 
> * We don't support other semantics.

Are you going to actually change the range definitions in that way? Are 
you saying that I should wait until then with fixing range issues in Phobos?

I'd expect those new definitions to be years away from becoming reality. 
It doesn't seem wise to leave bugs open today just because you have 
vague plans for fundamental changes in the distant future.