Le 06/11/2012 02:40, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
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.
At this point, if transient is out I'd prefer Jonathan's proposal were
everything is non transient. This is clearly simpler to use and break
less code.
Indeed, the added complexity of .transient exists. The beauty of it is
that it is possible to write 100% correct code without even knowing
.transient exists. This is why I like this option : the added complexity
only exists for the programmer that what to explore the arcane of the
language (which include you and me, but not most D users).
