Sure, Mike. But the idea is to have this for all iterator objects intrinsically rather than defining it for each function that returns an iterator.
There is likely a way to do this automagically for all iterators, but my julia-fu isn't strong enough that it jumped out at me when I looked over some source in base/. I expect it's simple, but I don't have time to figure it out today. Cameron On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Mike Innes <mike.j.in...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, if you want the first syntax you can easily define > > Base.enumerate(f::Function, args...) = map(t->f(t...), enumerate(args...)) > > You could always open a pull request if you wanted to see this in Base, > too. > > > On Thursday, 15 May 2014 21:18:31 UTC+1, Cameron McBride wrote: > >> I missed enumerate() for a while, and was happy I found it. I find it >> amusing how satisfying a few missing keystrokes can be. >> >> On a related but different note, from a similar influence, I keep wanting >> to pass blocks to iterators. Any chance that will ever happen? >> >> I realize that do..end blocks are used currently as syntactic sugar for >> methods that take a function as the first arg (e.g. open(), map()), and the >> same functionality can be achieved with three letters and two braces (map), >> but it still seems somewhat cleaner to write: >> >> enumerate(a) do i,x >> ... >> end >> >> over >> >> map(enumerate(a)) do i,x >> ... >> end >> >> which are really just equivalent, as we know, to >> >> for i,x, in enumerate(a) >> ... >> end >> >> Are there technical reasons this is a bad idea to assume? >> >> Cameron >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, John Myles White >> <johnmyl...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I kind of suspect Stefan, like me, would instinctively call this >>> operation `each_with_index`. >>> >>> -- John >>> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Kevin Squire <kevin....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> One nice thing about Julia is that she borrows many (though not all) good >>> ideas from other languages. In this case, enumerate came from Python >>> (although it likely has other incarnations). >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, May 15, 2014, Billou Bielour <jonatha...@epfl.ch> wrote: >>> >>>> I was thinking the same thing the other day, when using *for x in xs* I >>>> often find myself needing an index at some point and then I have to change >>>> the for loop, or write an index manually. >>>> >>>> Enumerate is exactly what I need in this case. >>>> >>>> +1 for Julia >>>> >>>> >>> >>
