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

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/30/21 12:05 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 March 2021 at 00:51:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> We investigated a few other possibilities, such as returning a pointer 
>> to the next element or null. But that has problems related to safety 
>> and escaping pointers.
> 
> Does -preview=dip1000 help at all with these issues? If so, might be 
> worth revisiting.

A good point.