protocol for using InputRanges

[Regan Heath]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:04:29 -0000, Chris <wendlec at tcd.ie> wrote:

> 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?

Pass.  My point was only that it needs to exist.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/