On 6/12/14, 2:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:00:11 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:I often find myself wanting to write this: foreach(; 0..n) {} In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.The compiler has to assign a variable to this somehow so it can increment and test. Naming it isn't the worst thing in the world. As others have said, pick an uncommon name.You can do this: for(;;) {} If 'for' lets you omit any of the loop terms, surely it makes sense that foreach would allow you to omit the first term as well? I see no need to declare a superfluous loop counter when it is unused.But that doesn't increment a variable and test it. If you wanted to loop for N times, you need a variable.
The compiler needs a variable. The programmer doesn't.
