On 6/12/2014 2:33 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 6/12/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d 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.
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.
I can't imagine this has ever been a significant issue for anyone. But
that said, I certainly can't disagree with it, and wouldn't object to it.
In Ruby/Crystal you can do:
n.times do
# code
end
In D you have to write:
for(unused; 0..n) {
# code
}
Doesn't it bother you that your language requires more typing and
defining dummy variables just for doing something N times?
No.
- It's a negligible amount of extra typing.
- I find typing to be the most trivial and least time-consuming aspect
of programming.
- I rarely need to do that. Most of my "N times" loops exist *because* I
want to use the index.
Note, I'm just trying to point out that small improvements in the
programmers life will be thanked a lot and more people will join your
language.
I think you've misunderstood my previous post. I *agree* with Manu. I
just don't think it's particularly significant.
