On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 21:44:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
But I think leaving the definition of the index up to the range
itself is paramount -- I don't want every range to be able to
have a size_t index, as that's not always what you want, and it
conflicts with other items. What we may need is a smarter way
to get from the type parameters at the front of the foreach to
an iterable type.
That's why I mentioned random access ranges, as in that case we
can sidestep this discussion; since foreach understands input
ranges, why can't foreach understand random access ones, and
iterate them as if they were slices, including maintaining a
foreach-generated index? That is, it would have nothing to do
with tuple unpacking. Plus, it would work transparently in the
cases you replace `slice` with `slice.algorithm`, where algorithm
maintains random-access. Instead of having to add .enumerate in
each place the slice (now a range) is iterated, it would just
work.
