RFC: naming for FrontTransversal and Transversal ranges

[Robert Jacques]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 15:17:04 -0400, Rainer Deyke <rainerd at eldwood.com>  
wrote:

> Robert Jacques wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 May 2009 03:39:27 -0400, Rainer Deyke <rainerd at eldwood.com>
>> wrote:
>>> You can have non-copyable value types, but they can't be containers.
>>
>> No they don't. Iteration can often be destructive. If I iterate over a
>> stack or a queue, I'm left with an empty stack/queue. For value
>> semantics to work non-destructive copying is required.
>
> OK.  I grant that there are non-copyable types that can reasonably be
> called containers.  Simple solution: make them non-copyable structs.
> You still get most of the benefits of value types:
>   - One less layer of indirection.

Again, D array's are structs with reference semantics. This isn't a  
pro/con either way.

>   - No long distance dependencies.

Well, if I can't copy it, then I have to use ref everywhere, which is  
functionally equivalent to reference semantics. I think you've just proved  
the counter-point.

>   - RAII.

Can be done with structs or classes. Also see point 1. So, this isn't a  
pro/con either way.