RFC on range design for D2

[JAnderson]

Hi Andrei,

I like the idea behind ranges.  I don't like C++'s / stl's long winded 
syntax at all.  Its so large that it generally uses up several lines 
along with several typedefs etc...  All that work just to iterate over 
some data.  The longer things get the more error prone they get... how 
many times have I put an begin when I meant to put end *sigh*.

However I currently disagree on this point.

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 >
 > Fine. So instead of saying:
 >
 > foreach (e; c.all) { ... }
 >
 > you can say
 >
 > foreach (e; c) { ... }
 >
 > I think that's some dubious savings.


I think its useful to have the implicit range conversion.  Consider 
writing generic/template code.  Of course built in arrays could provide 
the .all but then consider passing around ranges.  That would also mean 
all ranges would also have a .all (could we go .all.all.all for 
instance?).  I'm all for compile time checking however I think that 
implicit .all (with of course an explicit option) will make it easy to 
change a function that once took an object to take a simple range  Also 
it would make it easy to change from one way of getting at a range to 
another.

What about matrices?  They don't implement default .all, they would 
provide like .col and .row.

> Andrei