On Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 19:03:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/27/14, 9:12 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
filter comes to mind. -- Andrei
You *just* turned down a pull that did exactly that, for
exactly the
same reasons.
I was on the verge, and we need to discuss this more. A
constructor that does arbitrary work for a lazy range doesn't
sit well. -- Andrei
I still think there's ambiguity in the word "lazy". I think this
is the distinction most make:
Not lazy:
//----
auto r = getSomeRange();
auto arr = someRange.array();
foreach( ref e ; arr)
doSomething;
remove!fun(arr);
return arr;
//----
Lazy:
//----
return getSomeRange()
.map!doSomething()
.filter!fun()
.array();
//----
What you are talking about (IMO) is better described as "eager"
vs "not eager".
"A constructor does some work for a lazy range that does eager
processing of its elements": I think this is a better
description, and I think is acceptable.
