On 2012-05-04 19:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, May 04, 2012 13:46:33 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I give up. Apparently you don't think it's useful.
If you can come up with an example/reason why it would actually be useful,
then great. But I don't see why it would ever matter what the original
container type really was.
You need the original range type in cases like std.container's remove
function, but then the range must _be_ the original range type from that exact
container in order to work, and there's no way that you could turn a wrapped
range into the proper range for that, since you'd have to create a new
container, and then the resultant range would be for the wrong container. And
that's the only situation that I can think of where it really matters what the
original container type was. If you want to construct a new container out of a
range, then great, but since it's a new container, I don't see how it matters
what the original container was unless you intend to assign the result to the
new container or somesuch, in which case, you would already have access to the
type, because you'd have a variable to assign to.
- Jonathan M Davis
I have no problem if there's a new collection. I'm saying of the same
_type_, not the same _collection_. As I've said in other posts in this
thread, I mostly just want to assign the result of a range operation
back to the original variable. Preferably I would like to not have to
call any extra functions or constructors but that's not how ranges work.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
