Ranges, constantly frustrating

[Jakob Ovrum]

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 12:10:51 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> FWIW I disagree.  I think it's immediately and intuitively 
> obvious what 'i' should be when you're foreaching over X items 
> taken from another range, even if you do not know take returns 
> another range.  Compare it to calling a function on a range and 
> foreaching on the result, you would intuitively and immediately 
> expect 'i' to relate to the result, not the input.
>
> R

How should it behave on ranges without length, such as infinite 
ranges?

Also, `enumerate` has the advantage of the `start` parameter, 
which usefulness is demonstrated in `enumerate`'s example as well 
as in an additional example in the bug report.

I'm not yet sure whether I think it should be implemented at the 
language or library level, but I think the library approach has 
some advantages.