On 3/27/14, 11:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:02:16 -0400, monarch_dodra
<monarchdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 15:19:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/27/14, 3:49 AM, "Marc Schütz" <schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
I was originally going to do that, but then I took a closer look at the
documentation, which says ([1] in the documentation of
`isInputRange()`):
"Calling r.front is allowed only if calling r.empty has, or would have,
returned false."
Probably we need to amend that. For efficient ranges, front() and
popFront() should only be guaranteed to work if either empty() or
length() were evaluated first, and they returned false or nonzero,
respectively.
I just want to point out that I think allowing empty to have an
*observable* side effect will have cataclysmic repercussion in
validating a release build, what with all our "assert(!empty);" calls
and all.
This is an excellent point. assert(!empty) is everywhere.
-Steve
Yah, agreed. -- Andrei
