On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:30:44 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> And since isInputRange has guaranteed that elements have been copyable, > I think that it's perfectly reasonable that it's been assumed that they > would be, and changing that at this point just isn't worth it. yet disallowing some algorithms on ranges that are (algos) working ok is limiting too. fixing `isInputRange` was the easiest way i found to allow usage of such algorithms. another possibility is to check all algo implementations and see if they can be used with ranges that have non-copyable elements, and then mark them as such, replacing `isInputRange` to newly created trait. this can be automated, i believe -- at least checking. i understand that this will add another trait to the pile, but i believe that this will make std.algorithm better, as it will accept more range types. from the user POV i don't care about "range definition purity", the only thing i see is that std.algorithm is rejecting a perfectly valid range, and i'm doing no copies at all -- so i must forget about all std.algo niceties and fall back to stupid loops. i.e. allowing such ranges in std.algo (where appropriate) will be a win for end-user. i understand that it will add some support burden, though. but it shouldn't be that big, considering that implementations are more or less stable now.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
