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

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2021-03-24 20:23, Per Nordlöw wrote:
> What's the motive behinds D's range design choice of needing
> 
>     if (!empty)
>     {
>         // use front or back
>     }
> 
> instead of having front returning an optional/maybe type with enforced 
> pattern matching?

In my opinion, the best way to interact with an Optional type is not to 
use pattern matching but to use algorithms like `map`, `each` and so on. 
That means an Optional type needs to implement the range API. Might be a 
bit confusioning if `front` then returns an Optional.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg