KennyTM~: > And this change makes integers look like they are iterable,
That's not so good, I agree :-) > This makes 'if' looks like a template :p. I agree, that may cause troubles in D. Not good. > Yeah this was tried once and becomes a mess in detail :) I remember part of the discussion, and I think it's a not so messy situation. I think it's doable. > So how Archetype deals with 0 and 1-tuple? I don't know, I presume as Python. In that discussion I said to Walter than the 1-tuple cause problems in Python. In the meantime I have changed my mind a bit: 1-tuple syntax in Python is not great, but it's much better than not having tuple syntax :-) > 'yield' is gogreatod. I have no idea what 'gogreatod' means, sorry :-) > This could be a library type (as proposed before?) Right. > the problem is to let the compiler knows the value-range in the propagation. Right... > Yes. Maybe the Python/Javascript 1.7-like syntax > a = (f(x,y,z) foreach(x,y; it) if(cond(x,y)) foreach(z; it2) ...) Yes please. Plus the eager version too that produces an array: [f(x,y,z) foreach(x,y; it) if(cond(x,y)) foreach(z; it2) ...] > Since this is an O(N) operation I don't see any reason an operator-based > syntax will be allowed, given 'in' is rejected for this reason. I don't agree. "in" was refused for the linear search because elsewhere the D "in" is known to be O(1). But D operators are generally allowed to perform O(n) operations too, think about the "a[]-10" vector operation. > Hundreds could be >> 100 :) Noam Chomsky is a genius and you must listen to him even when he's drunk :-) Bye, bearophile
