ch-ch-changes

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jason House wrote:
> I think algorithm signatures should not be made unnecessarily
> complex, and instead rely on other utilities for complex behavior.
> For example map!("a*a")(r1,r2) can be implemented as
> map!("a*a")(chain(r1,r2))

Yah, good point. I'm ambivalent about that. On one hand composition is 
nice, on the other hand map is likely to be used very often so a 
shortcut is welcome. What do others think?

> I also see in the docs that the structs returned are documented,
> complete with all the functions that they include.  I'd hope that we
> could somehow document this stuff simpler...
> 
> Maybe the following? outputRangeType!(r) map!(fun)(r)
> 
> note also how accepting only one range also makes documenting the
> return type easier ;)

I'm waiting for that "auto" return feature to work with ddoc...


Andrei