On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:48:49 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 5/16/12 12:34 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
In other words, ranges aren't enough.
This is copiously clear to me, but the way I like to think about it is
by extending the notion of range (with notions such as e.g.
BufferedRange, LookaheadRange, and such) instead of developing an
abstraction independent from ranges and then working on stitching that
with ranges.
What I think we would end up with is a streaming API with range primitives
tacked on.
- empty is clunky, but possible to implement. However, it may become
invalid (think of reading a file that is being appended to by another
process).
- popFront and front do not have any clear definition of what they refer
to. The only valid thing I can think of is bytes, and then nobody will
use them.
That's hardly saying it's "range based". I refuse to believe that people
will be thrilled by having to 'pre-configure' each front and popFront call
in order to get work done. If you want to try and convince me, I'm
willing to listen, but so far I haven't seen anything that looks at all
appetizing.
-Steve
