On Saturday, August 11, 2012 19:29:53 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > I also wonder whether there exists a better name than > finish()
finish is what I've used for similar functions in the past. It seems like a fine name to me. > and how to handle cases in which e.g. you finish() an output > range and then you put more stuff into it, or you finish() a range > several times, etc. In all of the cases that I've dealt with where anything like finish is required, it's made no sense whatsoever to call finish mulitple times. > Destroy! Overall, seems like a sensible idea to me. - Jonathan M Davis