On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:09:04 -0400, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:30:53 -0000, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gah, I didn't cut out the right rules. I meant the two rules that empty
must be called before others. Those are not necessary.
I see. I was thinking we ought to make empty mandatory to give more
guaranteed structure for range implementors, so lazy initialisation can
be done in one place only, etc etc.
Yes, but when you know that empty is going to return false, there isn't
any logical reason to call it. It is an awkward requirement.
I had the same thinking as you, why pay for an extra check for all 3
calls? But there was already evidence that people were avoiding empty.
-Steve
