VLERange: a range in between BidirectionalRange and RandomAccessRange

[Steven Wawryk]

On 19/01/11 11:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/18/11 6:00 PM, Steven Wawryk wrote:
>> Which is exactly what I asked you about. I understand that you must be
>> very busy, But how do I get you to look at the actual technical content
>> of something? Is there something in the way I phrase thing that you
>> dismiss my introductory motivation without looking into the content?
>>
>> I don't mean this as a criticism. I really want to know because I'm
>> considering a proposal on a different topic but wasn't sure it's worth
>> it as there seems to be a barrier to getting things considered.
>
> One simple fact is that I'm not the only person who needs to look at a
> design. If you want to propose something for inclusion in Phobos, please
> put the code in good shape, document it properly, and make a submission
> in this newsgroup following the Boost model. I get one vote and everyone
> else gets a vote.

Ok, thanks for this suggestion.  But if developing a proposal as 
concrete code is a lot of work that may be rejected, is there a way to 
sound out the idea first before deciding to commit to developing it?


> Looking back at our exchanges in search for a perceived dismissive
> attitude on my part (apologies if it seems that way - it was
> unintentional), I infer your annoyance stems from my answer to this:
>
>>>> How does this differ from Steve Schveighoffer's string_t,
>>>> subtract the indexing and slicing of code-points, plus a
>>>> bidirectional grapheme range?

No, this was just a summary.  Here is the post that you answered 
dismissively: news://news.digitalmars.com:119/ih030g$1ok1$1@digitalmars.com

 >
 > In the interest of moving this on, would it become acceptable to you if:
 >
 > 1. indexing and slicing of the code-point range were removed?
 > 2. any additional ranges are exposed to the user according to decisions
 > made about graphemes, etc?
 > 3. other constructive criticisms were accommodated?
 >
 > Steve
 >
 >
 > On 15/01/11 03:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 >> On 1/14/11 5:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 >>> I respectfully disagree. A stream built on fixed-sized units, but with
 >>> variable length elements, where you can determine the start of an
 >>> element in O(1) time given a random index absolutely provides
 >>> random-access. It just doesn't provide length.
 >>
 >> I equally respectfully disagree. I think random access is defined as
 >> accessing the ith element in O(1) time. That's not the case here.
 >>
 >> Andrei
 >


> I happen to have discussed at length my beef with Steve's proposal. Now
> in one sentence you change the proposed design on the fly without
> fleshing out the consequences, add to it again without substantiation,
> and presumably expect me to come with a salient analysis of the result.
> I don't think it's fair to characterize my answer to that as dismissive,
> nor to pressure me into expanding on it.

Sorry, I could have given more context.  But you didn't discuss what I 
asked, based on the observation that your detailed criticisms of Steve's 
proposal all related to a single aspect of it.

Steve