Referencer

[HaraldZealot via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 12:09:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Monday, 23 November 2015 at 11:31:32 UTC, HaraldZealot wrote:
>
> RefRange is not intended to work with output ranges, and output 
> ranges are very different beasts from input ranges, so any kind 
> of reference type wrapper for output ranges should be a 
> separate construct. That being said, I'd be inclined to argue 
> that anything taking an output range should always take it by 
> ref, precisely because copying an output range almost never 
> results in the correct semantics. So, we should probably make 
> it a general policy that anything accepting an output range 
> should accept it by ref.

So, you see that to open a PR about changes _by value_ to _by 
ref_ semantic for all functions operate with out range 
(especially for copy) is better way? But this breaks existing 
API...

> Certainly, I would think that your Referencer type is going in 
> the wrong direction, because it's declaring a bunch of 
> functions that have nothing to do with output ranges.

I see my referencer as universal wrapper to any value-like stuff 
(e.g. structs or even simple POD variable), not only for out 
ranges (or input ranges). But possibly it is to general (and so 
not perfect) solution.