improving the join function

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 10/11/2010 10:34 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
>> On 10/11/2010 08:57 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> But right now the point is: join() does something completely different
>>> and should be renamed (or deprecated in std.string and replaced by
>>> union() - a real join isn't needed in std.string anyway, but when join()
>>> is deprecated in std.string you can implement a real join in
>>> std.algorithm without causing too much confusion).
>>
>> I think union() is a worse name than join(). The discussion was to
>> generalize within reason std.string.join, which is present under that
>> name and with that functionality in many other languages and libraries.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Okay, union does kind of suck, because it implies set semantics (and
> thus no ordering).
>
> What about concat()?
> It seems like join() is expected to work this way for strings.. but as a
> generic algorithm working on kind-of-cursors?

I for one would expect join() in its relational sense to work on things 
quite a bit more structured than just ranges (there's need for indexes 
etc). Therefore, if relational join() will be introduced later, 
overloading will disambiguate it. There's no reason to worry.

Andrei