[phobos] Simplify iota for floating-point types?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday 23 December 2010 10:52:31 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> These are reasonable arguments, and I'd agree a lot more if I didn't
> also believe that bidirectional and random access of iota ranges is
> extremely rare. So it looks like we're hurting the common case for the
> sake of a potential but obscure and rarely realized generality.

Didn't you already suggest splitting iota into two different functions/types so 
that one was forward-range only and one was random access? Given the definite 
loss in efficiency of dealing with floating-point values correctly with random 
access, I don't think that it's reasonable to leave iota as is - particularly 
since in most cases, iota wil probably not need random or bi-directional access.

- Jonathan M Davis