On 12/06/14 17:00, 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.
The only reason I can see to make this change is to make it more consistent with "for". But I don't know if it's "for" that is inconsistent with everything else or if it's "foreach" that is inconsistent with "for".
-- /Jacob Carlborg
