On 06/17/2013 09:36 PM, monarch_dodra wrote: > Being able to *save* a random range (which your proposal would prevent) can > have > useful applications too. It means you can iterate on the same random number > sequence several times, lazily, without having to store the results in a > buffer.
One further remark on this. I agree that it would be nice to be able to .save where possible -- that is, if one has a pseudo-random number sequence one should be able to save, and only if the source of randomness is "truly" random should the adapter range be an InputRange rather than ForwardRange. I concluded that this wasn't feasible more out of despair than desire, because I felt that deterministic, .save-able behaviour had its own traps that were potentially severe, because they would involve generating unintended statistical correlations that the user probably wouldn't notice.
