ideas about ranges

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:50:03 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:22:55 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>> 1. Any range should be seamlessly and efficiently used as an input  
>>> range.
>>  This is the assumption I am challenging.  I don't think you need this  
>> assumptions for ranges to work.  You can always bolt input range  
>> functionality on top of a stream range if you want to treat a stream as  
>> an input range for some reason.
>
> I believe there is indeed a terminology problem. To me, "input range" ==  
> "stream" == "socket" == "bridge that is sinking under your feet as you  
> walk it". So to me there exists no "stream range". That to me is an  
> "input range".

OK, I can see you're not going to alter your opinion, so I'll stop  
debating.  I respectfully disagree with your definitions.

>> But if foreach doesn't utilize the popNext api, then streams require an  
>> unnecessary layer on top, just to use foreach with them.
>
> We can arrange that foreach uses popNext, but it must be worth it.

I can't say for certain that it is, but you definitely will know if when  
you start implementing ranges based on stuff like files, and things just  
seem difficult to implement or have unsolvable problems.  I guess we wait  
and see.

-Steve