multiple-item traversal ranges

[Jonathan M Davis]

On 2011-03-30 17:05, dsimcha wrote:
> On 3/30/2011 7:56 PM, bearophile wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis:
> >> Andrei is currently against making range-based functions work with
> >> opApply because of the resulting increase complexity of the
> >> implementations. They were really meant for ranges, not opApply. That
> >> doesn't necessarily mean that it's a guaranteed "we don't want to do
> >> it," but it's definitely questionable.
> > 
> > There is no "perfect design" here. I have suggested a compromise, where
> > few basic functions (array(), walkLength()) work with every kind of
> > iterable. Othrwise opApply becomes a third-class functionality and users
> > need to write their own opApply-related functions.
> > 
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
> 
> Agreed.  Andrei's opinion is understandable if he thinks he'd have to
> implement these features and has better things to do.  I'd be willing to
> do the implementation work if the relevant compiler bugs/enhancements
> (2443, 4707, and maybe support for inlining delegates) get fixed so I
> can do it right.

I don't think that it was just a question of having to implement it. It's a 
question of the complexity of the implementation. Having to duplicate a bunch 
of functions - or large portions of them - to get opApply to work with them 
increases their complexity. You'll have to talk to Andrei though if you want a 
better understanding of his opinion on the matter.

- Jonathan M Davis