On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 08:23:01PM +0200, Peter Alexander wrote: > On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 18:06:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >On Thursday, July 04, 2013 19:28:29 w0rp wrote: > >>I see yield as a tool only for when you only want to create input > >>ranges easily. There is a definite value in the other range types, > >>but yield is useful for when you just want to produce an input range > >>quickly. > > > >And given how useless pure input ranges are, I really don't see much > >value in that. About all they give you is the ability to iterate over > >a set of values once. The other range types are _far_ more powerful, > >and pure input ranges should be avoided as much as possible IMHO. [...]
I disagree. Most of the time you only want to iterate over a set of values once, and input ranges are perfectly suited for that. I'm a stickler for requiring the minimum to be functional -- if a function only needs to iterate the range once, then it should only require an input range, nothing more. > To be fair, most of the time all you want to do is iterate over the > range, so while they aren't powerful, they are sufficient most of the > time. +1. That's not to say other range types aren't useful; they are very useful (and necessary) in certain contexts. But more often than not, what I do with a range requires nothing more than an input range. T -- It's bad luck to be superstitious. -- YHL
