On 06/28/2018 11:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2018 05:52:03 Alex via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> Wouldn't this be weird from the semantic view?
I agree with all your concerns. The fact that Meta decided to make the
element type Algebraic!T as opposed to my CommonType!T choice is another
semantic problem.
> It wouldn't make any sense to turn a Tuple into a range. However, if
all of
> the values are of the same type, it might make sense to create a
range from
> each of the values in the Tuple.
I went a step further and used CommonType!T.
> a helper function could be created that takes a Tuple and
> returns a range which wraps it.
That's what my example did (with added bugs like 'length' being an enum
by mistake).
> And at that point, talking about
> getting a range over a Tuple is basically the same thing as talking about
> creating a range from an arbitrary struct whose members all happen to
have
> the same type - and that would be pretty weird.
Agreed.
Ali
