"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Someone wrote a very compelling argument for ufcs (uniform function call >> syntax) for ranges, and that is, given a slew of range functions, and a >> slew of ranges, it is nice to use a fluent programming syntax to specify >> wrappers for ranges without having to extend each range type. For >> example: >> >> take(10,stride(2,cycle([3,2,5,3]))); >> >> vs. >> >> [3,2,5,3].cycle().stride(2).take(10); >> >> And I thought damn it would be nice if ranges could implement ufcs, but >> other types that you didn't want to allow infinite extendability could >> avoid it. That gave me an idea :) >> >> > > I just hope it doesn't cause real ufcs to become an even lower priority > than it already is. >
Sorry for the partial top-posting...
