On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 23:25:34 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 23:08:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Yes, that DIP.[http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP57] It would need some
more formal work before defining an implementation. Stefan,
would you want to lead that effort? -- Andrei
I am not good at defining semantics, yet I would participate in
a joint effort with Timon.
I thought some more about this. static foreach is probably not a
good idea at this point.
We should focus on getting the existing features to do their job
properly and we won't have to add yet more meanings to the word
static.
Our code-generation facilities with CTFE and mixins are very good
indeed.
When polished CTFE can totally be used as a serious workhorse for
cases that would have fallen intro the static foreach category.
