On 11/6/12 2:44 AM, deadalnix wrote:
To be honest, my biggest fear isn't that this proposal is rejected, but that we fallback as default on the input range = transient / forward range = non transient scheme, because we fail to come up with something better, or that the status quo is choosen (as both seems to me worse than the .transient proposal).
I think the simplification of input range = transient and forward range = not transient has a lot going for it. It is simple, easy to explain and understand, and builds on simple real-life examples (buffered input and singly-linked lists). Clearly adding a new notion to the soup makes for more expressiveness, but it also makes for more complexity and subtlety in support for niche ranges. This should not be neglected.
Andrei
