Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Pablo Ripolles wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> 
>> In wake of the many excellent comments and suggestions made here, I made 
>> one more pass through the draft proposal for ranges.
>>
>> http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/~aalexand/d/tmp/std_range.html
>>
>> There are some comments in red illustrating some uncertainties (not 
>> all), and the names of the primitives have been updated. Bicycle shed 
>> galore! But don't forget to comment on the reactor as well :o).
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> 
> Well, it looks prety clean! :D
> 
> However, I'm not completely sure I like these "head" and "toe" names selection.  It projects to much on it, doesn't it?  couldn't it be more neutral?  perhaps more conceptual?  I haven't been able to read the last days' comments... but my last impressions were that this "head" was not the best choice.
> 
> If "head" is the header item, why not call it "header"?
> 
> If ''toe" is the last item, why not call it "last"?
> 
> Other comment goes for the "done" property, for the seek of consistence shouldn't it better be named "isDone"?
> 
> Cheers!

Thanks. One problem in coding with first and last was that sometimes the 
code looks unnatural, especially when your range exposes a few more 
functions. In a stream parser, dealing with the "first" element is not 
the most natural way to think of it. But I agree that first and last are 
definitely palatable and natural most of the time. But then again, 
shouldn't any design have the inevitable cutesy that makes it memorable? :o)

Andrei