On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:49:46 -0400, Manu via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 June 2014 13:29, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
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 compiler doesn't use the result of front().
foreach(x; 0..5) translates to for(auto x = 0; x < 5; ++x)
So there is no "front"
The comparison and increment are done behind the scenes.
These use popFront() and empty(), not front().
I don't understand, 0..n is not a range.
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.
How is it a special case? It would be consistent with for(;;)
foreach(x; 0..5) is a special case of foreach.
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.
Fine with me. I'd prefer this too.
foreach over a range doesn't make any sense unless you are using the
data.
This is a non-issue IMO.
Who says?
You can't possibly conceive of a case where the length is the only
interesting property? (obviously I'm confronted by the case now, and
not for the first time)
Then use length or walkLength
You'd argue for foreach(_; 0..myRange.length)? That's pretty awkward.
It's how I would do it, but I'd use 'i' instead of '_'
Some forward ranges don't have a known length, and can only be summed
by an iteration sweep.
http://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html#.walkLength
-Steve
