Le 05/11/2012 08:58, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
On Sunday, November 04, 2012 21:07:46 H. S. Teoh wrote:
Stop right there. You're contradicting yourself. You kept saying that
transient ranges are rare, abnormal, etc., and now you say they are a
potentially large number of range types? I'm sorry, you've managed to
utterly confuse me. Are they rare, or are they not?
If they are rare, then this thin wrapper only needs to be written in
those few rare cases. *No other range type needs to be changed.*
If they are common, then they aren't abnormal, and we should be fixing
Phobos to deal with them. Everywhere. In a pervasive, invasive, large
changeset, because almost all current code is broken w.r.t. to these
common cases -- if indeed they are common.
Base ranges with transient fronts are rare, but as soon as you have to take
them into account with wrapper ranges, then they potentially affect almost
every range-based function in Phobos. So, you're taking a very rare case and
forcing _everything_ to account for it. _That_ is why it affects a large number
of range types.
Don't you understand that every other solution proposed here, including
Andrei's, have the same very drawback ?
I'll add that this drawback is much worse, because with the ;transient
solution, unmodified code will work correctly. With all other proposed
behaviors, non updated code will expose undefined behavior when facing
transient ranges, which is much worse.
