std.range.iota enhancement: supporting more types (AKA issue 10762)
Jakob Ovrum
jakobovrum at gmail.com
Sat Dec 28 08:51:19 PST 2013
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 at 16:30:27 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
> I can see the case for it, but to me it seems like a too
> restrictive requirement.
Yes, I can totally see that. I'm not really invested either way,
because while I see a need for bidirectionality with `iota(start,
end)`, it seems less useful with `iota(start, end, step)`.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list