On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 at 21:54:52 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/05/2014 07:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/5/14, 10:45 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 at 18:39:08 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Doesn't enable anything. There'd be a ton more juice in a
static
foreach; it would enable a lot of great idioms. We should
pursue that
instead.
Andrei
Btw, are there any unexpected design difficulties with static
foreach?
Or it is just waiting for someone to do the pull request?
The one difficulty is figuring how to allow for all iterations
to stay
in the same scope, yet not have duplicate definitions of the
iteration
symbol.
static if needs exactly the same thing, currently the following
compiles:
static if(is(int A)){}
A b; // meh
It's pretty easy to solve: Just give static if/static foreach
it's own scope, but by default forward symbol insertions to the
enclosing scope. Symbols introduced by the construct itself are
inserted directly into its scope and not forwarded.
I don't think this is the right solution. Spewing error is better
than overly complicated design.
