Heap: container or range?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> Consider:
>>
>> int[] a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
>> foreach (e; a)
>> {
>>    if (e == 3) break;
>> }
>> assert(a == [4, 5]);
>>
>> Do you seriously expect that to be the case? Of course not. However, you would
>> inconsistently expect this to happen:
>>
>> int[] a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
>> foreach (e; take(4, a))
>> {
>>    if (e == 3) break;
>> }
>> assert(a == [4, 5]);
>>
>> Ranges are modeled to correspond to slices. Slices have few operations that
>> manipulate them by reference (notably the controversial ~=) and range are made
>> to be unsurprising when compared to slices. They are really extensions of
>> slices.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> I hate to come back to naming, but I think that's a major part of what's 
> causing grief here.  Take implies mutation of the input range.  How about 
> 'subrange' or 'subset' or 'leftmost' anything that doesn't imply removal.
> 
> Later,
> Brad

Names are important. "take" is taken from Haskell.

Andrei