RFC: naming for FrontTransversal and Transversal ranges

[Georg Wrede]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
>> I'm a C++ refugee and value semantics make no sense to me. I always
>> declared classes (as part of function declaration) in C++ with a &...
>> Either T& or const T&. There were plenty of bugs where I messed up
>> and forgot the &. D is nice in that it tries to simplify that. You
>> yourself had issues with remembering ref parameters when implementing
>> ranges!
> 
> Good point, but the issue boils down to this: do we define container 
> members more often, or define container function parameters more often? 
> Because inside a data structure value semantics are useful more often 
> than not, and in a function parameter list reference semantics are 
> useful more often than not.
> 
> I do agree that D programmers grown used to cheap-to-pass data and I 
> don't want to cure anyone of hiccups :o).

Will it be an incurable mess if you let the programmer choose each time? 
(Then we'd of course have this same discussion about which is the 
default. :-) ) But still, I can see situations where it is _obvious_ 
which should be used.

Somebody into more functional style would have different needs than the 
more imperative guy. Not to mention more specific situations.