On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:37:13 monarch_dodra wrote: > IMO, this makes a clean distinction between both "types" of > slicing. An added bonus is that (for now) it also correctly > supports finite RA ranges that don't define opDollar.
I don' think that such a distinction should be made at all. I think that all sliceable ranges should be required to implement opDollar. The problem is that it's unreasonable to require that when opDollar just got fixed, and arguably issue# 7177 should be implemented before it's reasonable to require it. But regardless, that means that creating a trait to test for opDollar working doesn't make sense. It would just have to be thrown away later. > PS: Do we really have to force that infinite slice to be of a > type of "take"? Does that mean we can't imagine an infinite range > that defines it's own finite slice type? I think that it's more valuable to make it consistent. What would a separate finite type even buy you? It would just be doing what take would do. I do kind of like the idea of just disallowing slicing without opDollar on infinite ranges though, in which case you'd have to use take yourself. I don't know what Andrei's take would be on that though. - Jonathan M Davis
