bearophile wrote: > Rainer Deyke: >> Allowing ranges to have either value or reference semantics is a >> disaster, > > At the moment you can put the methods that define a range into a > struct, or inside an class (just like you can put opApply inside a > struct or class). What do you suggest? To allow such methods inside > classes only? Uhm.
Ranges are defined as a concept. A concept is not just a list of methods, but a specification for the semantics of the type. I suggest that the "range" concept unambiguously defines the semantics of the assignment operations. My preference is to use value semantics. Move semantics would also work. Both would require a 'struct' type (which can be a thin wrapper around a 'class' type). (My real preference is to remove the value/reference type schism entirely, but that's not what I'm suggesting here.) -- Rainer Deyke - rain...@eldwood.com
