On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 17:39:19 Timothee Cour wrote:
> std.range shouldn't contain public import std.array.

It's done because otherwise std.range is useless with arrays, and arrays are probably the most frequently used type of range. We lose nothing by having that public import. Now, documenting public imports is a good idea, but I don't understand why you think that having std.range publicly import std.array is a problem.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 09:21:08PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 17:39:19 Timothee Cour wrote:
> > std.range shouldn't contain public import std.array.
> 
> It's done because otherwise std.range is useless with arrays, and arrays are probably the most frequently used type of range. We lose nothing by having that public import. Now, documenting public imports is a good idea, but I don't understand why you think that having std.range publicly import std.array is a problem.
[...]

We should document public imports.

But the whole point of publically importing std.array in std.range is so that you can endow arrays with the range API by importing just std.range. I think we should keep it. Just add it to the documentation.


T

-- 
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.