Re: Shout out to D at cppcon, when talkign about ranges.

[Ulrich Küttler via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 at 07:09:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 at 06:52:13 UTC, Ulrich Kuettler 
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 at 02:31:53 UTC, Eric Niebler wrote:
Given that starting point, ranges of different strength are 
an "obvious" next step that many people thought up 
independently. D took it one way and C++ went another.

When designing my range library, I looked at all the prior 
art available to me including D ranges and decided D's path 
was not the right one for C++.

What is your thinking here? Did you write it down somewhere? 
This would be very interesting.

Obviously, Eric would have to respond for us to know what his 
reasoning was, but I expect that it least part of it stems from 
the fact that C++ already uses iterators heavily. So, having a 
range-based solution that doesn't interact with iterators (like 
D has) doesn't fit in well with the existing code and 
paradigms. Even if you were to assume that D's approach is 
superior (which is debatable), that doesn't mean that it's a 
good fit for C++. D has the advantage of having considerably 
less baggage to deal with, so we have more freedom in the 
direction that we go. Whether we go in the right direction or 
not is another matter, but C++ has considerably more 
constraints than we have, so it's no surprise if we end up with 
different solutions.


Yes, this is an explanation. Thanks. So the argument being C++ 
customs. Now that you mention it, this seems to be the argument 
in Eric's D4128 paper, too.

I was hoping for a somewhat deeper reasoning. Out of curiously, I 
am still trying to grasp all the implications. Ranges are hard.