On Thursday 23 December 2010 10:52:31 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > These are reasonable arguments, and I'd agree a lot more if I didn't > also believe that bidirectional and random access of iota ranges is > extremely rare. So it looks like we're hurting the common case for the > sake of a potential but obscure and rarely realized generality.
Didn't you already suggest splitting iota into two different functions/types so that one was forward-range only and one was random access? Given the definite loss in efficiency of dealing with floating-point values correctly with random access, I don't think that it's reasonable to leave iota as is - particularly since in most cases, iota wil probably not need random or bi-directional access. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
