On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:23:53 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:42:49 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
put(R, E) -> putNext(R, E)
Rationale: conveys the notion that there is progress in the output.
Can we have E getNext(R) also for completeness :) Then an input range
can be defined similarly to an output range (where delegates and ranges
that support E get() work).
Since put/putNext already establishes the notion of throwing when full,
having getNext throwing when empty would be OK, no?
Note to self: read all NG posts before posting :)
-Steve
