Are iterators and ranges going to co-exist?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:05:21 -0400, BLS <windevguy at hotmail.de> wrote:

> 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.

I hope we can talk about how to fix it, send me an email.  AFAIK, nobody  
(including myself) has tried to swap out implementations, so the "able to  
swap out implementations" is only a theory :)

Perhaps the feature can't work, I'm not sure.

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

Yeah, documentation is poor.  Please let me know the issues, and I can  
explain.  Eventually, I want to document everything properly.

> 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)

Let's work to fix it.  I want dcollections to be as usable as possible.

-Steve