"the last change" for ranges

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
>> MLT wrote:
>>> One needs something like a lazy semi-infinite range, that only calls
>>> a certain function when it reaches an unexplored part.
>> That's a great abstraction, but we can't afford to impose that to
>> everybody. There must be an abstraction for a one-pass go through an
>> arbitrarily long stream.
>> Anyhow, I decided to change ranges as follows:
>> a) Input:
>> bool empty();
>> ref T popNext();
>> b) Output:
>> void putNext(T);
>> c) Forward:
>> bool empty();
>> ref T front();
>> void popFront();
>> The function ref T popNext() is a nonmember that accepts any forward
>> range and uses front() and popFront(). Of course, a forward range is
>> welcome to implement popFront as a member if it so wishes. The function
>> putNext() overwrites front() and then calls popFront.
>> d) Bidirectional:
>> bool empty();
>> ref T front();
>> void popFront();
>> ref T back();
>> void popBack();
>> popNext, putNext apply as for forward ranges.
>> e) Random
>> bool empty();
>> ref T front();
>> void popFront();
>> ref T back();
>> void popBack();
>> ref T opIndex(uint n);
>> void opIndexAssign(T, uint n);
>> popNext, putNext apply as for forward ranges. We need to fix the
>> opIndexAssign mess.
>> Andrei
> 
> (Bangs head against desk.)  Sorry.  Didn't see the part about the non-member
> popNext(), though this would require Walter to make extension methods work for
> structs, which should probably happen anyway.

I should learn to never post before reading all messages...

Andrei