Jonathan M Davis napisał: > > I don't know a terser way to get a full-fledged range. It comes at a cost, > > though. Lazy parameters are just sugar over delegates, so it's not exactly > > Usain Bolt**... And you can't return it because by bug or by design lazy > > parameters (unlike vanilla delegates) don't work like closures. Still, > > even with the overhead and limitations the idiom is remarkably useful, > > especially in face of range-unfriendly libraries from outside D realm. > > > > Enjoy. > > What types of stuff do you need ad-hoc ranges for? What's the use case? I've > never actually needed such a thing. I'm curious. If it's really something > that's > likely to be generally useful, then a function similar to what you're > suggesting > probably should be added to std.range.
Like I said, anything that doesn't bother to expose range-interfaced iterators and is not performance critical is considered a target for ad hoc ranges. Working with non-D libraries, or libraries ported to D but preserving mother-language idioms. Tasks like traversing a tree of GUI widgets, or business specific objects where defining proper ranges rarely happens and is use-case driven in practice. I expect they could be of some use in unittesting as mock input. Vaguely related: educational -- ad hoc ranges read almost like a for loop so the learning curve for ranges in general is eased off. Adding them to Phobos is an interesting idea. We need to evaluate their worth, though. Everybody: if you could write up a one-liner like range(empty, popFront, front), what would you use it for? -- Tomek
