On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:58:51 -0000, Jesse Phillips
<jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 10:29:46 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
No, not good enough. This should just work, there is no good reason
for it not to.
R
I have long since given up believing this should be in the language, I'm
satisfied with the reasons I gave for why it is not in the language and
why it is not needed to be in the language.
You asked for feedback, I've given mine to you. I'm ok with you
disagreeing with that.
Sure, no worries. :)
I'd just like to list your objections here and respond to them all, in one
place, without the distracting issues surrounding the 3 extra schemes I
mentioned. Can you please correct me if I miss represent you in any way.
1. Adding 'i' on ranges is not necessarily an index and people will expect
an index.
2. You don't need to count iterations very often.
3. Your point about the "range gets a new value and foreach would compile
but be wrong"
4. This area of D is not important enough to polish
5. We will have enumerate soon, and won't need it.
I think this is every point you made in opposition of the change I want
(excluding those in opposition of the 3 additional schemes - which in
hindsight I should just have left off)
I believe objection #3 is invalid. The foreach in the example given is a
flattened tuple foreach, not the range foreach I want to change. Making
the change I want will have no effect on the given example.
I think the strongest objection here is #1, #2 and #4 are fairly
subjective and #5 just seems a little odd to me, why would you "want" to
type more rather than less?
For my point of view, it seems an obvious lack in D that the range foreach
doesn't have the same basic functionality as the array foreach. That's
pretty much my whole argument, it should just work in the same way as
arrays.
But, as you say we're free to disagree here, I was just about to suggest
we were at an impasse myself.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
