Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[aarti_pl]

Andrei Alexandrescu pisze:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> While we're on the subject of ditching, can we get rid of 
>>>> foreach_reverse? How hard is it for a range to just have a reverse 
>>>> property:
>>>>
>>>> foreach(element; myrange.reverse)
>>>>
>>>> Which simply reverses the order of traversal?  That also would moot 
>>>> the toe/last/tail/etc. debate ;)
>>> I wish that debate went away. But eliminating toe and retreat would 
>>> require requiring .reverse as a primitive for *all* ranges, which is 
>>> wasteful and repetitive. Instead, a better design is to have ranges 
>>> (those that can) offer toe and retreat primitives such that a generic 
>>> function retro offers backward iteration for any range. In addition, 
>>> certain algorithms (such as the one that reverses a range in place) 
>>> need to manipulate the same range from two ends. Implementing them 
>>> using .reverse and a second range would be more difficult.
>>
>> I didn't say you couldn't provide toe and retreat in Phobos' ranges 
>> (for the reverse-a-range function).  Most likely such an algorithm is 
>> not using foreach and foreach_reverse, but using the functions directly.
>>
>> My point was, foreach_reverse is an eyesore and a hack, and there 
>> really is no need for it.  And what a perfect time to get rid of it, 
>> since we are already changing how foreach works ;)
>>
>> I realize that this wouldn't really kill the toe debate for Phobos, 
>> but at least it would be a library decision, and not part of the 
>> compiler.
> 
> Yah, that makes sense. I vote for foreach_reverse to go away, too.
> 
> Andrei

vote++

BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)