Ruling out arbitrary cost copy construction?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 10/7/10 7:34 CDT, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2010-10-07 02:09:04 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>
>> I agree with all of the above. After all has been said and done, it
>> looks like uniform function call syntax is a pivotal feature for
>> simplifying ranges. Most ranges can simply define the basic
>> operations, and std.range takes care of defining boilerplate defaults
>> for a host of cases. For example, you just call r.moveFront() and that
>> becomes moveFront(r) which is defined by std.range.
>
> That's good. I'm glad to see that using move semantics is still on the
> table.
>
> Another note, you don't really need to wait for the uniform function
> call syntax for this to work. The moveFront function template in
> std.range could check for the presence of moveFront in the range and
> call it when available. This means you have to write moveFront(r)
> everywhere instead of r.moveFront(), which might be an annoyance but at
> least it works.

Turns out it's a lot more annoying in practice than I had imagined. I 
think I need to wait for uniform function call syntax.

Andrei