On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 11:43:28 UTC, monarch_dodra
wrote:
*Should* cycle be negatively index-able? Personally, I don't
think so. And even if it could, it has been proven non-size_t
indexing is not well supported at all. It was de-facto chosen
after the "iota-map fiasco" that all ranges be indexed with
size_t and nothing else...
Can you elaborate on what the problem was? I'm curious as I've
recently implemented a DSP module that uses ranges with
floating-point slicing and, other than having to define a second
kind of length (I call it "measure" so I can still have a
discrete length when I need it), it seems to work well enough so
far. It'd be bad if there were some unseen fiasco waiting for
me...
