On 2012-05-04 11:38, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, May 04, 2012 11:20:58 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-04 09:01, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Something like that could probably only be done if every range in the
potentially large chain of wrapped ranges provided a means of getting at
what type the previous one in the chain was, and very few ranges - if any
- do that.
However, I'm not quite sure what toCollection would buy you. Why does it
really matter what type of container the range comes from originally given
that you have to create a new container to put the elements of the range
into such a container? And if you're putting the elements of a range in a
new container, you can pick whatever container type you'd like, and since
it has no real connection to the original container, I don't see why it
would matter whether it was the same type of container. All you really
need is the equivalent of std.array.array for whatever container you want
to construct, and the container's constructor should provide that.
It's just like with the whole range idea, providing a common interface
for iterating over a collection (and some other stuff). Here the idea is
to have a common interface to transform the range back to a collection.
But what's special about the original container type? Once the range has been
wrapped, it doesn't really have any connection to the container - particuarly
when elements are likely to have been transformed and/or skipped or added such
that they're no longer strongly linked with the original elements. As far as I
can tell, the original container type becomes pretty much meaningless at that
point.
I give up. Apparently you don't think it's useful.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
