http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7177
--- Comment #63 from [email protected] 2013-04-01 16:11:54 PDT --- (In reply to comment #62) > (In reply to comment #61) > > (In reply to comment #59) > > > ... > > > > > > Yes, there is a bias - frequency. My core argument is that the vast > > > majority of > > > ranges simply want $ and length to mean the same thing, and very few need > > > to > > > have them mean different things. > > > > His proposal is to make it work for all ranges. > > Not sure I understand. It's possible I am confused. Could you please summarize > what you mean giving some more context? Thanks. Your proposal is to make opDollar refer to length whenever there is a length, auto ref opDollar(R)(auto ref R r) if (is(typeof(r.length))) { return r.length; } by default allowing things like: int[int] x = [1:0,3:2]; x[$]=1; assert(x==[1:0,2:1,3:2]); As far as I understand it, his proposal is to restrict $ to ranges. auto ref opDollar(R)(auto ref R r) if (isInputRange!R && hasLength!R) { return r.length; } std.range vs. object.d is a separate issue. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
