protocol for using InputRanges

[Chris]

On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 15:49:06 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:15:10 -0000, Chris <wendlec at tcd.ie> 
> wrote:
>
>> Earlier Walter wrote:
>>
>> "I don't like being in the position of when I need high 
>> performance code, I have
>> to implement my own ranges & algorithms, or telling customers 
>> they need to do so."
>>
>> I don't think there is a one size fits all. What if customers 
>> ask for maximum security? In any language, if I want high 
>> performance, I have to be prepared to walk on thin ice. If I 
>> want things to be safe and / or generic, I have to accept 
>> additonal checks (= perfomance penalties). I don't think that 
>> a language can solve the fundamental problems concerning 
>> programming / mathematical logic with all the contradictory 
>> demands involved. It can give us the tools to cope with those 
>> problems, but not solve them out of the box.
>
> You can build safety on top of performance.  You cannot do the 
> opposite.  Meaning, one could wrap an unsafe/fast range with a 
> safe/slower one.
>
> R

But should unsafe+fast be the default or rather an option for 
cases when you really need it?