On 2010-10-07 02:09:04 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> said:
I agree with all of the above. After all has been said and done, it
looks like uniform function call syntax is a pivotal feature for
simplifying ranges. Most ranges can simply define the basic operations,
and std.range takes care of defining boilerplate defaults for a host of
cases. For example, you just call r.moveFront() and that becomes
moveFront(r) which is defined by std.range.
That's good. I'm glad to see that using move semantics is still on the table.
Another note, you don't really need to wait for the uniform function
call syntax for this to work. The moveFront function template in
std.range could check for the presence of moveFront in the range and
call it when available. This means you have to write moveFront(r)
everywhere instead of r.moveFront(), which might be an annoyance but at
least it works.
Whenever the range is defined in a way that makes it impossible to
generate e.g. moveFront() appropriately, the user would have to. Would
this be acceptable?
Seems good to me.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
