On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 00:41:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2014 3:23 PM, QAston wrote:
The protocol is not intuitive.
I find empty-front-popFront as perfectly intuitive. I don't
find the counter proposals, which come with baggage like
constructors that may fail, and front() that may fail in
unspecified ways, or throwing entire paradigms out the window,
as intuitive.
But I concede that other people think differently. Not everyone
thinks the same. But consider this: floating point math is not
intuitive. There has never been a shortage of proposals to make
fp intuitive, but they've all failed because they are
impractical.
Sometimes ya gotta go with what works.
I _strongly_ agree with Walter: people learning D in my groups
have no problems with the empty-front-popFront sequence.
Please don't complicate or change the notion of range: you can
find an adjustment that don't break code, but for sure that will
break the mindset of people.
For what concern us, everyone here is happy with the fact that
empty *must* be checked prior to front/popFront.
--
Paolo
