On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 19:37:18 monarch_dodra wrote: > On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 at 17:07:19 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote: > > [SNIP] > > You know what, I think I have a better. Idea. All of this came up > because I've had iota break my compiles WAY more often then I'd > have liked. But I think I know of another solution. > > I think it would be nice if we enforced that all ranges used > size_t. Everywhere. And it was enforced. > > I'm sorry, I like extremes.
Personally, I'd love that. The problem is that iota was specifically changed to use ulong to support handling long and ulong properly on 32-bit systems. Without it, you can't actually use long or ulong with a step of 1 beyond uint.max (at least, I _think_ that that was the issue). Requiring that the length and indices be size_t undermines that. Now, I have no idea how much of a problem that realistically is. After all, you can't have an array of length > uint.max or 32-bit systems, so restricting iota to a length of uint.max isn't necessarily all than unreasonable IMHO. And per that argument, we _could_ change iota to use size_t again and just outright require that length and indices be size_t. - Jonathan M Davis
