On Wednesday, 19 November 2014 at 18:22:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:06:26PM +0000, Nick Treleaven via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 14/11/2014 21:52, David Nadlinger wrote:
>On Friday, 14 November 2014 at 06:10:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
>wrote:
>>std.range.checks
>
>For this, std.range.constraints would also be perfectly fine.
If it's not too late, can we change the name to
std.range.traits? It
seems better as they can be used in 'static if', not just for
template
constraints. Plus it's shorter and consistent with std.traits
naming.
It's not too late until the next release.
I prefer std.range.primitives, since it's not just traits, but
also
includes things like range API for built-in arrays (.front,
.empty,
.popFront).
T
I think "constraints" should be called "traits", because that's
what it actually is, and the top level module is called "traits"
(eg: isSomeString <==> isForwardRange). It makes little sense to
me for both to have different names.
The "popFront"/"moveFront" and friends I think belong in
"primitives". It sounds nice.
Also, every package std.range.* should publicly include
std.range.constraints too. That's what container does, in that
every sub package also includes the the "make" in
std.container.utility.
