• Tobias Pankrath (12/12) Oct 28 2012 Given:
• monarch_dodra (4/17) Oct 28 2012 No, you can't compare range contents with "==". You can use the
• monarch_dodra (6/19) Oct 28 2012 If you meant comparing the actual range objects using "r ==
• Tobias Pankrath (6/11) Oct 28 2012 I don't want to compare the contents of the range, but I'm

"Tobias Pankrath" <tobias pankrath.net> writes:

Given:

void foo(Range)(Range fwdR)
    if(isForwardRange!Range)
{
     auto tmp = fwdR.save;
     assert(tmp == fwdR);
}

May I assume that the assert holds for generic forward range 
types?

Reason: I try to write an algorithm, that is easily implementable 
with random access ranges, but to make it work with forward 
ranges I need a comparison similar to the one above.

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 28 October 2012 at 19:42:30 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
 Given:

 void foo(Range)(Range fwdR)
    if(isForwardRange!Range)
 {
     auto tmp = fwdR.save;
     assert(tmp == fwdR);
 }

 May I assume that the assert holds for generic forward range 
 types?

 Reason: I try to write an algorithm, that is easily 
 implementable with random access ranges, but to make it work 
 with forward ranges I need a comparison similar to the one 
 above.

No, you can't compare range contents with "==". You can use the 
algorithm "equal", which has a lot of logic to make it optimal 
when possible.

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 28 October 2012 at 19:42:30 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
 Given:

 void foo(Range)(Range fwdR)
    if(isForwardRange!Range)
 {
     auto tmp = fwdR.save;
     assert(tmp == fwdR);
 }

 May I assume that the assert holds for generic forward range 
 types?

 Reason: I try to write an algorithm, that is easily 
 implementable with random access ranges, but to make it work 
 with forward ranges I need a comparison similar to the one 
 above.

If you meant comparing the actual range objects using "r == 
r.save", that doesn't hold either: If a is a "reference semantic 
range", such as a class, then the saved range will be different 
from the old range.

Note that in both cases, this has nothing to do with RA vs Frwd.

"Tobias Pankrath" <tobias pankrath.net> writes:

I don't want to compare the contents of the range, but I'm
iterating a range and at some point I want to know if I have been
there before. Using RA I can just use indices.

 If you meant comparing the actual range objects using "r == 
 r.save", that doesn't hold either: If a is a "reference 
 semantic range", such as a class, then the saved range will be 
 different from the old range.

 Note that in both cases, this has nothing to do with RA vs Frwd.

The classes could overload opEquals to return the correct thing.
(Note: Both of my ranges have the same type). But it'd guess they
are not required to.