2011/9/6 Simen Kjaeraas <[email protected]>: > On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:05:23 +0200, bearophile <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Robert Jacques: >> >>> > Seconded. StaticIota is extremely useful for loop unrolling >>> > optimizations, e.g.: >>> >>> vote++ >> >> vote-- >> >> StaticIota is not the good solution. I have explained why elsewhere: >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4085 > > Certainly we could sit in a corner and pray to almighty Walter that this be > implemented, when he's done with the things he wants to do with D. Oooor - > we > could add StaticIota to Phobos, bypass the problem, and live happily ever > after. > > Yes, static foreach would be nice, but the means to do what it would do, are > easily implemented in the language as is.
Agreed to Simen. The foreach statement already has loop unrolling feature. To use it, we can pass a compile-time sequence (like TypeTuple) as its aggregator. I think it is clear language design, and not need more. Then we need staticIota. Kenji Hara
