Iota

[jmh530]

On Friday, 5 August 2022 at 00:56:04 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 August 2022 at 22:36:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps.  But the question now is, where do we go from here?  
>> How do we improve what we currently have?
>
> Phobos v2, I guess? Leave the problematic overloads behind, and 
> tell people upgrading to use a different function if they need 
> something fancier.
>
> Unless there's been a big policy reversal announced at DConf, 
> my impression is that breaking changes to existing Phobos 
> interfaces are off the table.

There is probably a balance here between simple low level 
constructions but at the same time a convenient high level API. 
As a user, I would just much rather be able to do something like 
`x.iota(a, b)` where `x` could be anything that it might make 
sense to call `iota` on (I like "Design by Introspection" with a 
bit of duck typing thrown in).

The issue with something like `iota(n).map!(i => 
MyType.startValue + i)` is that I might have to write that all 
the time as a user. From my perspective, I would rather put an 
`iota` overload in `MyType`'s module if I can't have it as part 
of `phobos`. From this perspective, `std.algorithm` should 
support built-in types and other types could define their own 
`iota` that call these.