On 1 November 2010 16:14, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org > wrote:
> On 11/1/10 9:09 AM, Gary Whatmore wrote: > >> Nick Treleaven Wrote: >> >> There's a C++0x proposal for a range-based 'for' statement: >>> http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2930.html >>> >>> The upcoming GCC 4.6 C++ compiler changes list support for this: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html >>> >>> I think the syntax could be useful for D to shorten and improve on the >>> status quo a little. Here's the C++ example: >>> >>> int array[5] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; >>> for (int& x : array) >>> x *= 2; >>> >>> Currently D has: >>> >>> int array[5] = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; >>> foreach (ref x; array) >>> x *= 2; >>> >>> I think this is better: >>> >>> for (ref x : array) >>> x *= 2; >>> >>> Apart from being 4 chars shorter, I think it looks more natural using the >>> ':' instead of ';'. A lesser benefit is it allows reuse of the 'for' >>> keyword, making the 'foreach' keyword unnecessary. >>> >>> Maybe this would be acceptable for D? >>> >> >> No, 1) it's too late to change it. 2) the syntax comes from Java. It would >> be embarrasing to admit that Java did something right. >> >> - G.W. >> > > Java did a lot of things right (be they novel or not) that are present in > D, such as reference semantics for classes, inner classes with outer object > access etc. > > Andrei > Why is reference semantics for classes the right thing to do? - Just curious about it, because to me it seems counter intuitive to have to semantics. -- // Yours sincerely // Emil 'Skeen' Madsen
