On Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 03:38:48 UTC, bearophile wrote:
In the last days Walter and other people are closing and fixing
many bugs. But there is one bug that Walter has closed that I
am not so sure about:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5306
I completely agree with your analysis.
foreach (i; 0..10) means to do something for every integer in the
0..10 range. It does *not* mean "start an integer at 0 and
repeatedly do something then increment it until it reaches 10".
That's the implementation detail. Adding ref should not leak the
implementation.
It doesn't for foreach (ref i; iota(0, 10))
It doesn't for foreach (ref i; /* an array of 0..10 */)
Why should foreach (ref i; 0..10) be a special case?
Arguing that it is sometimes convenient is not a strong argument.
There are plenty of things that are sometimes convenient (e.g.
implicit casting between any type), but are error-prone and
disallowed for good reasons.
If you want control over the way the index variable increments
then use a standard for-loop. That's what it's there for.
