Motive behind !empty() with front() instead of Optional front()

[Per Nordlöw]

On Friday, 26 March 2021 at 08:49:30 UTC, Piotr Mitana wrote:
> Actually changing front() to return optionals would probably 
> break many things. However, it could be handy to add a method 
> called nullableFront or frontOrNull (and nullableBack or 
> backOrNull for bidirectional ranges) to std.range.

Agreed. Alternative namings could be maybeFront or optionalFront.