Revised RFC on range design for D2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Bruno Medeiros 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
> 
> """
> All ranges satisfy certain invariants outlined below. (r is an object of 
> a range type R.)
> """
> 
> By "object" you actually mean struct no? Struct instance to be even more 
> precise.
> 
> 
> Also, some more on important bike shed issues:
>     for (; !src.done; src.next)
>     {
>         tgt.put(src.head);
>     }
> 
> As a matter of coding style conventions, I would say that using the 
> implicit property function call feature on a function that changes state 
> is *bad* style, and surely hope the community would agree on that.

I sure hope they won't agree to an unsupported assertion.

> So "src.next" would be must better as "src.next()" as "src.next" really 
> just makes me cringe.

With me it's the opposite, particularly after I've written and stared at 
a few hundreds of "()"s due to a compiler bug.


Andrei