Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Bill Baxter (wbaxter at gmail.com)'s article
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>> Unless it's a class you mean?
>>> Yah, ranges are meant to have value semantics. If you have a class container
>>> exposing ranges, define the range separately from the container itself:
>>>
>>> MyIterable collection;
>>> foreach (element; collection.all) {}
>>> foreach (element; collection.all) {}
>> Add .opRange so that's not necessary?  Or allow opApply to return a range?
>> Otherwise it looks like a step backwards.
>> --bb
> 
> One point of clarification:  opApply isn't going to be deprecated anytime soon, is
> it?

I hope to be able to deprecate it.

> It seems like ranges still have a bunch of rough edges, and although I like
> the idea in principle, I'm only willing to convert to ranges if I can define
> iterable objects with the same level of syntactic sugar as opApply gives me.  For
> simple cases this is already true and I have begun converting some stuff.
> However, for more complicated cases, opApply is still a lot more flexible.

Ranges do have a number of rough edges, and IMHO the best way to address 
those is to improve ranges, not keep opApply.


Andrei