On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:56 -0800, H. S. Teoh wrote: > I don't like duplicating a whole bunch of algorithms in > transalgorithm.
If its true what you say, that usually there is no difference in efficiency, than there is no need for any duplication. But it is certainly better to offer an standard implementation (if needed) than having every user do the duplication. I know that coding by convention is discouraged, but some conventions work pretty well. I would suggest for any new ranges that provide a transient front to have them called something like byLineTransient, byChunkTransient(). So it is obvious from reading the code what you deal with. (I am not suggesting renaming the already existing methods, I just picked the first examples I could think of) I personally would be very happy, if all algorithms who can accept transient fronts do and that mostly algorithms for which it is obvious that they can not support them, don't support them. In conjunction with documentation & maybe a naming convention, I think this is already pretty good and at least in my very humble opinion, good enough.