Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > I don't quite understand this. Ranges are a very simple abstraction for > iteration. They show how other iteration abstractions either were too > unsafe and verbose (C++/STL) or too bare-bones (C# iterators, Java > iterators, singly-linked lists used by functional languages), so in that > regard I think they hit the spot pretty nicely. Ranges are useful, but > hardly a be-all end-all. Thinking of building an application entirely of > ranges... I can't quite parse that. > > > Andrei
Andrei, I'm still waiting to read the definitive article about ranges. Does this exist at present? It's nice to have something like an RFC, not just a new version of a standard library without warning, and just depend on the comments. As Walter has I think said, comments always lie! Steve
