Shout out to D at cppcon, when talkign about ranges.

[Trass3r via Digitalmars-d]

Here's the original discussion with Eric's elaborate answer:
http://ericniebler.com/2014/02/21/introducing-iterables/#comment-403

> Because I want to leverage the vast amount of iterator-based 
> code already written, and because in my experience, I don’t 
> find that ranges as primitives solve all the problems that 
> iterators do.

> Many algorithms return positions. These all suffer the same 
> problem as find. One algorithm implementation isn’t sufficient; 
> you need bunches of differently-named algorithms that differ 
> only in the subrange they return.

> As for the political argument: I want ranges in the standard. 
> There is just no way the C++ standardization committee would 
> ever consider a range-only interface.