Are iterators and ranges going to co-exist?

[BLS]

On 22/07/2010 23:00, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> collections has a feature where you can swap the underlying
> implementation for something completely different.

ATM I find it pretty hard to implement an other underlying 
implementation for dcollections.

Say an LL RBTree or an Skiplist for dcollections.

1) You've placed a couple of things into the node structure. and IMO it 
is not always clear why.

2) I am still not happy with your Node(V) instead of Node(K,V) decision. 
I know about your reasons, but to be honest with you, I am not sure if 
it's worh the additional programming effort needed for a  key-value 
implementation OR the reduced lines of code just to generalize the 
node/tree so that it can also handle a vector. f.i)

For me this reduction to c!V . (funny enough) creates old bloated/messed 
up code

void* abc(int i, bool A = true, bool B = true, int 
in_a_very_special_case_here_another_thingy  = 0, int 
cause_DEF_requires_this_param = 0)

But heck I can be wrong. Still, comparing for equality seems to be 
bloated, and (somebody else raises this up), how to implement multi- 
index with just having c!(V)

my 2 cents

Bjoern