https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4707
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707
monarchdo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707
Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@dawg.eu
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707
--- Comment #3 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-08-29 21:33:04 PDT ---
Another use case for this is if you are iterating over something that may be
expensive to copy. In these cases, doing foreach(elem; stuff) is inefficient
because it
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707
nfx...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nfx...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707
--- Comment #2 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-08-21 20:49:02 PDT ---
Because if the range didn't support ref iteration, the foreach loop would work
with non-ref iteration rather than producing a compile time error.(In reply to
comment
