On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:40:41 -0200, Ary Borenszweig wrote: > Ary Borenszweig escribió: >> Sam S E escribió: >>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Sam S E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Sam S E >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> Does foreach use delegates? Isn't that unnecessary overhead? --Sam >>>>>> It does use delegates, for iterating over most types. When >>>>>> iterating over arrays, the compiler turns it into a sort of for >>>>>> loop instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it unnecessary overhead? It's not always as fast as it could >>>>>> be, but unless someone can figure out some other way of >>>>>> implementing it, it's pretty much the best we can get. >>>>>> >>>>>> How about iterator objects, like in C++ or Java? Are they >>>>>> unnecessary overhead? ;) >>>>> Why not just use a normal for loop; wouldn't it be almost as simple >>>>> as token substitution? By 'most types,' do you mean associative >>>>> arrays or am I forgetting something? As a mainly C(++) programmer, I >>>>> don't use iterators when I don't need to. I don't even use classes >>>>> when I don't need to. >>>> How do you use a for loop to iterate over an associative array whose >>>> implementation is hidden, or a binary tree, or any arbitrary >>>> container, or a sequence or words in a file, or the zipped contents >>>> of two lists, or... >>>> >>>> The point of foreach isn't performance, it's flexibility and >>>> abstraction. As long as you can make an opApply or function which >>>> takes a delegate, you can use the foreach loop with it. Not >>>> everything is an array. >>> >>> Where are the docs on opApply? >> >> Search opApply in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/statement.html >> >> Can't the search in digitalmars.com/d be improved? Searching for >> "opApply" you get ten results which are just questions in the >> newsgroups, and just in the second page you can see the result you >> probably are looking for. >> >> I suggest improving it in this way: >> 1. Have a map of obvious keywords that people will look for, to precise >> urls. Some examples are: delegate, function, override, virtual, class, >> struct, union, interface, pointer, op*, operator overloading, >> inheritance, final, const, invariant, etc. 2. If the search is exactly >> one of the keywords, use the map above. 3. Else, use Google Search >> Engine. >> >> The list might be big, but it can be done if the community helps, and I >> think it will improve a lot the usability of the site. >> >> Actually, the map can be [keyword -> list of urls]. For example, for >> invariant it should point the invariant attribute as well as invariant >> classes. >> >> And don't point me to >> >> http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageSpecification/ KeywordIndex >> >> >> I know it exists, but people how enter the D site (and the above is not >> the D site) will use the search box. Who uses indexes these days when >> you can search and find what you want? > > Umm... I didn't mean to sound rude or anything. Unfortunately, when > someone doesn't speak in its native language, he tends to sound rude. > > Does anyone else have problems with the search box in digitalmars.com/d > ?
I don't think this really sounded terribly rude. I do agree that searching the site can be annoying when top results are always from the newsgroup. Maybe an option to search digitalmars/d and one to search digitalmars/d/archive (don't know if that could be customized).
