Steve Teale wrote:
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
Other people have explained this once, but allow me to repeat. There was
a lengthy RFC period with discussions on the announce group entitled
"RFC on range design for D2" supported by a document. That document has
been since superseded by the implementation documentation which, aside
from a few issues described by Steve in bug #3017, contains everything
you need to define and use ranges effectively.
There was a lengthy "warning breaking changes coming" period, to the
extent that some people on the group got tired of it.
If you are interested in ranges, the one thing you shouldn't be doing is
to wait for a tutorial written by yours truly. What you could be doing
in little more than the time it takes to write a long post (ahem) would
be to grok ranges yourself and write a solid tutorial about ranges in a
blog, web page, or online magazine. They are deceptively simple and can
be composed in very interesting ways.
Waiting for something from Walter or myself is not the pattern to be in.
Shin, Don, Jarrett, David, and others are doing great stuff, and
incidentally don't whine as much (except for Jarrett -- squeaky wheel
gets the K-Y).
Andrei
