On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 19:08:59 Piotr Szturmaj wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > if length can be specifically ulong and the type is random access, then > > its > > indices will need to be ulong), so unfortunately, the situation is not so > > simple that you can always assume size_t (even you should arguably be able > > to). > > It seems that isRandomAccessRange doesn't check that opIndex parameter > type and length() return type are the same. Do you think it should?
Definitely. It makes no sense to be able to have a length greater than you can index (beyond the fact that the last index is length - 1), and it makes no sense to be able to index anything greater than length as far as the size of types go. - Jonathan M Davis