On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 13:22:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

Well, if it should not be possible to reply then maybe disable it altogether? I think it is reasonable to respond to old threads if the context makes sense (as I believe it does in this case), and the system agrees with me.

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 13:22:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

PS: I think this message is unhelpful, unnecessary (since you know that the system issues a warning) and is worse than ignoring the post altogether (if you otherwise had nothing to contribute).

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 11:35:53 UTC, D Lark wrote:

The function you are looking for is std.range.tee.

It was added to Phobos in 2014 by pull request #1965, approximately one year after the post you replied to.

This is why it's generally frowned upon to revive old threads: the information they contain is often out of date, and potentially misleading to anyone who reads them without looking carefully at the timestamps.

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 14:47:17 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

I felt the need to reply in-line to correct the misconception from that post that itertools.tee "basically works on forwardRanges". It does something very different, there is no "forwardRange" in python the only range concept (iterators) are equivalent to inputRanges and nothing more.

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 14:47:17 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

I had see the std.range.tee, but it does not appear to me to be the same as itertools.tee. I think with std.range.tee you get an input range and an output range out of an input range. With python's itertool.tee you get two or more input ranges from an input range (hence my claim earlier that it sort of simulates forwardRange.save).

I felt the need to reply in-line to correct the misconception from that post that itertools.tee "basically works on forwardRanges". It does something very different, there is no "forwardRange" in python the only range concept (iterators) are equivalent to inputRanges and nothing more.

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 14:53:31 UTC, D Lark wrote:

Even in the present day, it seems there still exists a misconception. Beyond the name there is not much similarity between the two, so I think my question is still valid.

Because it does not seem like that from the tone of responses I have gotten: I did my due diligence, I believe, before posting my original reply to the old question. I had looked at the docs and also searched the forum. There is no need for the patronizing tone you have taken.

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 15:03:47 UTC, D Lark wrote:

No one has been patronizing to you. They were just explaining the informal custom in these forums. Please don't take it the wrong way.

The forum software is a web interface to a newsgroup server. The software could be enhanced to prevent posting to old threads, but there's never been a need to (and people would still be able to post through the newsgroup server anyway). It's a fairly common convention across the internet (and has been for years) that reviving old threads is frowned upon (the term often used is "necroposting"). Normally, the warning provided is enough.

So let's leave this thread to Rest in Peace. And next time you attempt to post an old thread here, please allow the forum software to do it's thing when it warns you. Thanks!