digitalmars.D - Re: Dithering about ranges
- Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> May 22 2009
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:I don't quite understand this. Ranges are a very simple abstraction for iteration. They show how other iteration abstractions either were too unsafe and verbose (C++/STL) or too bare-bones (C# iterators, Java iterators, singly-linked lists used by functional languages), so in that regard I think they hit the spot pretty nicely. Ranges are useful, but hardly a be-all end-all. Thinking of building an application entirely of ranges... I can't quite parse that. Andrei
Andrei, I'm still waiting to read the definitive article about ranges. Does this exist at present? It's nice to have something like an RFC, not just a new version of a standard library without warning, and just depend on the comments. As Walter has I think said, comments always lie! Steve
May 22 2009
Steve Teale wrote:Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:I don't quite understand this. Ranges are a very simple abstraction for iteration. They show how other iteration abstractions either were too unsafe and verbose (C++/STL) or too bare-bones (C# iterators, Java iterators, singly-linked lists used by functional languages), so in that regard I think they hit the spot pretty nicely. Ranges are useful, but hardly a be-all end-all. Thinking of building an application entirely of ranges... I can't quite parse that. Andrei
Andrei, I'm still waiting to read the definitive article about ranges. Does this exist at present? It's nice to have something like an RFC, not just a new version of a standard library without warning, and just depend on the comments. As Walter has I think said, comments always lie! Steve
Other people have explained this once, but allow me to repeat. There was a lengthy RFC period with discussions on the announce group entitled "RFC on range design for D2" supported by a document. That document has been since superseded by the implementation documentation which, aside from a few issues described by Steve in bug #3017, contains everything you need to define and use ranges effectively. There was a lengthy "warning breaking changes coming" period, to the extent that some people on the group got tired of it. If you are interested in ranges, the one thing you shouldn't be doing is to wait for a tutorial written by yours truly. What you could be doing in little more than the time it takes to write a long post (ahem) would be to grok ranges yourself and write a solid tutorial about ranges in a blog, web page, or online magazine. They are deceptively simple and can be composed in very interesting ways. Waiting for something from Walter or myself is not the pattern to be in. Shin, Don, Jarrett, David, and others are doing great stuff, and incidentally don't whine as much (except for Jarrett -- squeaky wheel gets the K-Y). Andrei
May 22 2009