On Thu, 17 May 2012 01:48:06 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
<seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
I'm a little discouraged that my concern about "input ranges can't save
their state, and yet that's exactly what happens implicitly" hasn't been
addressed. I was hoping to at least get a "That's not really a problem
and
here's why..."
input ranges can save their state if they are also forward ranges.
However, that said...
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote...
It is deliberate and the intent is that millions of programmers used to
foreach from other languages don't scream "where is my range???"
"Era Scarecrow" wrote...
Range can refer to many things, and I'm assuming array is one of them.
So... If the array is consumed when using foreach, that seems dumb
right?
(An array in the end is just a small struct afterall...)
I admit, those are fair points.
With those in mind, I've given it some more thought, and here are my
current...umm...thoughts:
[snip]
This is not a problem with ranges, this is an issue with value types
versus reference types. I believe someone has created a byRef struct that
wraps a range and iterates it byRef (maybe dsimcha?)
Almost all ranges except true input-only ranges (i.e. input ranges that
are only input ranges) should be value types.
If we *didn't* do this, you would need heap data for each range.
-Steve
