On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:04:08 -0400, Daniel Murphy
<[email protected]> wrote:
"Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message
and
personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced variable' warning for the
unused loop counter. I like warnings hassling me about unused
variables.
This is a good point.
In this case, it's being "used" but not by the user. The comparison and
increment are done behind the scenes. Note that unused variables typically
are on function parameters and are silenced by naming the type but not the
variable. This request is not in line with that, it is asking for
elimination of the variable and the type, in one special case.
If it were to be accepted, I'd push for foreach(x) instead of
foreach(;0..x). Cut down all the noise, not just some of it.
I also object to the inconsistency with for(;;). Recall Scott Myers
talk...
Should we also allow "foreach(;)" ? 'for' being so loose is not
necessarily something we want to copy.
Completely different. foreach makes no sense without the second statement.
It's theoretically an optimisation too; capturing front may be a
costly operation that's not required. Ranges maintain their counters
internally, there's no reason to emit code to capture a local copy of
'front' if it's not used. popFront and empty don't imply a byVal copy,
they usually just update range counters.
The compiler's optimizer will do that just fine.
foreach over a range doesn't make any sense unless you are using the data.
This is a non-issue IMO.
-Steve
