On 3/30/11 7:05 PM, dsimcha wrote:
On 3/30/2011 7:56 PM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Andrei is currently against making range-based functions work with
opApply
because of the resulting increase complexity of the implementations.
They were
really meant for ranges, not opApply. That doesn't necessarily mean
that it's
a guaranteed "we don't want to do it," but it's definitely questionable.
There is no "perfect design" here. I have suggested a compromise,
where few basic functions (array(), walkLength()) work with every kind
of iterable. Othrwise opApply becomes a third-class functionality and
users need to write their own opApply-related functions.
Bye,
bearophile
Agreed. Andrei's opinion is understandable if he thinks he'd have to
implement these features and has better things to do. I'd be willing to
do the implementation work if the relevant compiler bugs/enhancements
(2443, 4707, and maybe support for inlining delegates) get fixed so I
can do it right.
I'm much more worried about the long-term costs associated with such an
approach.
Andrei
