On Monday, 27 April 2020 at 04:41:58 UTC, drug wrote:
27.04.2020 06:38, Jon Degenhardt пишет:
Is there a better way to write this?
--Jon
I don't know a better way, I think you enlist all possible ways
- get a value using either `front` or special range member. I
prefer the second variant, I don't think it is less consistent
with range paradigms. Considering you need amount of consumed
bytes only when range is empty the second way is more effective.
Thanks. Of two, I like the second better as well.