15-Mar-2013 06:43, deadalnix пишет:
> On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 23:52:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:54:52 -0400
>> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>> That implicitly does the equivalent of ".save" on a mere InputRange
>> *twice*. The result, of course, is completely dependent on the input
>> range in question.
>
> Passing range by value is completely undefined, which is IMO a big weak
> spot of ranges.

What can be done in the mean time is stating somewhere prominent this:

Given InputRanges a & b:

1. a = b; //now 'a' can only be *either* an alias of 'b' or 'a' is a copy of 'b'
2. a = move(b); //now a is the only copy (the only alias ;))
3. a = b.save(); //now a is guaranteed to be a shallow copy

By copy here it's implied that range preserves iteration state. The underlying values may be changed elsewhere.

There could be some argument to make 1 always do 3 and trim it to 2 rules. But ehm, sorry, classes as ranges can't do that so we are stuck.

If I had to choose I'd drop the current OOP support of D in favor of simplifying things (only half-joking) :)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

15-Mar-2013 15:27, Dmitry Olshansky пишет:
> 15-Mar-2013 06:43, deadalnix пишет:
>> On Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 23:52:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:54:52 -0400
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>>>
> [snip]
>>> That implicitly does the equivalent of ".save" on a mere InputRange
>>> *twice*. The result, of course, is completely dependent on the input
>>> range in question.
>>
>> Passing range by value is completely undefined, which is IMO a big weak
>> spot of ranges.
>
> What can be done in the mean time is stating somewhere prominent this:
>
> Given InputRanges a & b:

Forward obviously.

>
> 1. a = b; //now 'a' can only be *either* an alias of 'b' or 'a' is a
> copy of 'b'
> 2. a = move(b); //now a is the only copy (the only alias ;))
> 3. a = b.save(); //now a is guaranteed to be a shallow copy
>
> By copy here it's implied that range preserves iteration state. The
> underlying values may be changed elsewhere.
>
> There could be some argument to make 1 always do 3 and trim it to 2
> rules. But ehm, sorry, classes as ranges can't do that so we are stuck.
>
> If I had to choose I'd drop the current OOP support of D in favor of
> simplifying things (only half-joking) :)
>


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On 3/14/2013 1:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> We can do a lot, lot better before we need something better than -cov.

A proposal to improve the use of -cov:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9726

On 2013-03-12, 23:49, Hans Uhlig wrote:

> On 3/9/2013 10:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 17:51:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2013 03:15 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
>>>
>>> >   - static-if not creating scopes /is/ confusing, but what
>>> would be a better
>>> >     alternative?
>>>
>>> I am surprised that << and >> are never mentioned:
>>>
>>>     static_if >>
>>>         void foo();
>>>     <<
>>>
>>> Problem solved. ;)
>>>
>>> Ali
>>
>> static if(condition) «
>>      void foo();
>> »
>>
>> Let's do it with style ;)
>
> So now I am going to need a unicode keyboard or a massive list of unicode code points.

Or we could make the language latex-aware, and use \guillemotleft and
\guillemotright. That would also solve the problem of operators ∃, √,
⊂, ∩, ∙, ⨯, and the like.

I kid, of course. But it might be worth having a look at Fortress for
their representational and editable forms, as well as the wealth of
overloadable operators.

-- 
Simen