Mike S: > I figured the eager ones wouldn't be a problem, but I wondered whether > the lazy ones might be a pain. Guess not, so cool. :)
Lazy ones are just a struct/class instance that contains an opApply method (or that follows the Range protocol methods). Very easy. > As far as D3 goes though: Obviously nothing about it has really been > discussed at length, but is the general idea that it would be another > backwards-incompatible overhaul, or is the plan to make D2 the target > for backwards compatibility from here on out? >From what I've seen, D3 will probably be backwards compatible with D2. (But maybe D3 will feel free to fix few backwards incompatible warts/errors found in the meantime, I don't know, like un-flattening tuples). Bye, bearophile
