Why is std.algorithm so complicated to use?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 21:07:51 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Second, it would be much easier if it would be possible to better name
> these ranges, something like interfaces but without polymorphism. This
> as been mentioned several times before.

They're templated types. They have to be templated types. And since they're 
templated types, better names do you no good whatsoever as far as declaring a 
variable goes. You'll _never_ be able to do something like

NiceName range;

NiceName will always be templated. The _closest_ that you get is with 
Voldemort types. Since they're templated as part of the function that they're 
in rather than separately, they end up with names such as Result or 
FilteredRange, but you couldn't do

FilteredRange range;

because that type depends on its outer scope (in this case, filter). You'd 
_still_ have to use typeof or ReturnType if you need to declare such a 
variable without directly assigning it (in which case, you can use auto). And 
if you have a separate range type rather than a Voldemort Type, you end up 
with stuff like Until!("a == b", string, dchar). The templated nature of ranges 
makes it impossible to have friendly names which you can use to simply declare 
variables of a particular range type. auto, ReturnType, and typeof are 
required tools for dealing with templated types like this.

- Jonathan M Davis