20-Sep-2013 17:50, Szymon Gatner пишет:
On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 13:32:47 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
20-Sep-2013 15:01, Szymon Gatner пишет:
On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 10:47:52 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
[snip]
A text-book example of self-destruction(?).
Ranges (in particular Input/Forward) are not much above encapsulation
of iteration, hence must contain that state required to iterate said
elements. Which leads to the point that indeed containers have no
business being ranges by themselves.
The bottom line is:
sort(container[]);
vs
sort(container);
Where I hardly see how coupling containers with algorithms can bring
even slightest benefit.
OK so it seems we agree. I never said that containers should be ranges.
Ranges are abstraction on iterators and that is it. Single container can
have multiple ranges existing at the same time. State is attached to
ranges not containers. And most importantly ranges are mutable always,
even if underlying container isn't. Ranges are meant to have state. No
idea what you mean by self destruction.
Then it may be a misunderstanding on my part. I was referring to your
previous reply. Where I basically said:
>> Can't a container be a range as well?
>>
>For Christ sake no, no and no.
[... Because that would be ...]
> TL;DR: Suboptimal, unnatural and error prone are keywords.
Then your question - Why would it be suboptimal?
Which your second reply seem to clearly explain: extra state placed
where it doesn't belong. I can't easily correlate your two answers as
they look as if the second one answers questions of the first.
Anyhow we are in agreement here.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
