redefining "put" and "OutputRange"

[monarch_dodra]

On Friday, 30 August 2013 at 15:16:15 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> I think the problem is "put" overstepping its boundaries. If
>> "r.put(someSlice)" compiles, "put" has no reason to think that 
>> R
>> actually owns the elements in the slice.
>
> It should and this is where we differ I guess. I can't think of 
> a useful output range that stores away aliases to slices it 
> takes.

Not "aliases to slices", but slices themselves. For example, a 
dictionary, which is a container of "words" (strings) could 
define a sink that accepts strings to feed it word. Or, well 
anything that defines the *element* itself as the object. For 
example, something that accumulates *lists* of ints.

In any case, I get your point about functionality. I can rework 
my pull to make it work as before, while still keeping the 
trans-coding functionality :/

But I'm not a huge fan.