Marco Leise wrote:
foreach (i; 0 ... 9, +2)
This syntax looks nice. In fact it could replace
"foreach_reverse" simply by specifying a negative step value:
foreach (i; 9 .. 0, -1)
also nice would be:
foreach (i; 9 ... 0)
The alternative:
foreach_reverse(i; 0 .. 10)
is really hard on the human brain :D
Wouldn't this require additional runtime checks? If "foreach (i;
9 .. 0)" was sugar for "foreach (i; 9 .. 0, -1)" in cases where
each range value could be determined at compile time that would
make sense. Otherwise I'd rather have my brain do a bit more work
in these cases over slowing down loops everywhere.