On 10/11/2016 06:24 AM, Jon Degenhardt wrote:
The example I gave uses ref parameters. On the surface it would seem
reasonable to that passing a static array by ref would allow it to be
modified, without having to slice it first.
Your ref parameters are only for the per-element operations. You're not
passing the array as a whole by reference. And you can't, because `each`
itself takes the whole range by copy.
So, the by-ref increments themselves do work, but they're applied to a
copy of your original static array.
Question is, should `each`
1) take all inputs (ranges, arrays, other foreachables) by reference, or
2) take some inputs (like static arrays) by reference, or
3) take all inputs by value (current behavior)?
#1 would break code. Would probably need some deprecating and name
shuffling to be acceptable. Would also need to make sure that this is
actually the most desirable behavior.
#2 would probably create surprising corner cases. I don't think we can
tell for sure if a range needs to be passed by reference in order to see
updates to its elements. I'd be against this.
#3 may be a little surprising in how it doesn't affect value types (like
static arrays). However, before switching to #1, you'd need to make sure
that that one doesn't have worse corner cases. I don't see any deal
breakers, but that doesn't mean they're not there ;)
You also have to see if changing to #1 is worth the effort. It would be
an effort not only for the implementer, but also for the users who have
to update all their code.
