On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Consider:
>
> int[] a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
> foreach (e; a)
> {
> if (e == 3) break;
> }
> assert(a == [4, 5]);
>
> Do you seriously expect that to be the case? Of course not. However, you would
> inconsistently expect this to happen:
>
> int[] a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
> foreach (e; take(4, a))
> {
> if (e == 3) break;
> }
> assert(a == [4, 5]);
>
> Ranges are modeled to correspond to slices. Slices have few operations that
> manipulate them by reference (notably the controversial ~=) and range are made
> to be unsurprising when compared to slices. They are really extensions of
> slices.
>
>
> Andrei
I hate to come back to naming, but I think that's a major part of what's
causing grief here. Take implies mutation of the input range. How about
'subrange' or 'subset' or 'leftmost' anything that doesn't imply removal.
Later,
Brad
