On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 16:21:21 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
Well, one issue is that for a "Range", "put" really just means
overwrite the front element, and pop it. So...
Array!int myArray = ...:
copy([1, 2, 3], myArray); //(1)
copy([1, 2, 3], myArray[]); //(2)
In this situation, (1) and (2) would have different meaning.
Just to clarify, I think that means that MAKING Array an output
range is a bad idea, for the same reasons that vector is not an
output iterator.
That said, having an explicit OutputRange adapator:
struct BackInserter(Container)
{
Container* c;
void put(T)(ref T t)
{
c.insertBack(t);
}
}
auto backInserter(Container)(ref Container c)
{
return BackInserter!Container(&c);
}
Useage:
inputRange.copy(someArray.backInserter());
There: Clear and un-ambiguous.
Should I file an enhancement request or is there something
fundamentally wrong with this idea? For Array it should be as
simple as adding
alias doPut = insertBack;
doPut is not a range primitive. Implementing "doPut" on your
container should have no effect. If it does, it is a bug and will
*quickly* be fixed. Don't count on it working.
The correct primitive is "put".
