Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Dave wrote:
> 
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:gadn7c$oe5$4 at digitalmars.com...
>> 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
> 
>  From the limited posts I've had the time to read, it seems this topic 
> has probably been already beaten to death, but how about "tail" instead 
> of "toe".
> 
> And instead of the "yellow" primitive, why not "intersect(r,s)" , 
> "intersection(r,s)", "r.contains(s)" , "r.intersect(s)" , etc.
> 
> Wasn't "intersect" the original?

Intersect is good but doesn't reveal an important detail: the operation 
is not commutative.

Andrei