On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 05:21:24 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 19:22:38 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
Should the following two uses be a compile-time error?
foreach(i; 10 .. 0) // Never executes
foreach(i; iota(10, 0)) // .. neither does this
I would like the
/home/alaran/tmp/test.d(5:16)[warn]: 3 is larger than 2. This
slice is likely incorrect.
/home/alaran/tmp/test.d(6:22)[warn]: 20 is larger than 10. Did
you mean to use 'foreach_reverse( ... ; 10 .. 20)'?
Isn't foreach_reverse being deprecated?
Oh. If so, what would be the right way to
Sergei Nosov:
Isn't foreach_reverse being deprecated?
The idea was discussed a little, but it's not deprecated, and
probably it will not be deprecated.
Bye,
bearophile
On 02/17/2014 08:22 PM, simendsjo wrote:
Should the following two uses be a compile-time error?
foreach(i; 10 .. 0) // Never executes
foreach(i; iota(10, 0)) // .. neither does this
I would like the second to either be a compile-time error or
automagically use a negative step.
So we
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 19:30:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/17/2014 08:22 PM, simendsjo wrote:
Should the following two uses be a compile-time error?
foreach(i; 10 .. 0) // Never executes
foreach(i; iota(10, 0)) // .. neither does this
I would like the second to either be a
On 02/17/2014 08:33 PM, simendsjo wrote:
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 19:30:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/17/2014 08:22 PM, simendsjo wrote:
Should the following two uses be a compile-time error?
foreach(i; 10 .. 0) // Never executes
foreach(i; iota(10, 0)) // .. neither does this
I
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 20:03:32 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/17/2014 08:33 PM, simendsjo wrote:
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 19:30:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/17/2014 08:22 PM, simendsjo wrote:
Should the following two uses be a compile-time error?
foreach(i; 10 .. 0) // Never
On 02/17/2014 09:21 PM, simendsjo wrote:
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 20:03:32 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
...
It was just to illustrate the issue more clearly. Eg. it means one and
the same iota expression can sometimes iterate in one direction and in
the other direction at other times. That's
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 21:06:50 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/17/2014 09:21 PM, simendsjo wrote:
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 20:03:32 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
...
It was just to illustrate the issue more clearly. Eg. it
means one and
the same iota expression can sometimes iterate in
On 02/17/2014 10:12 PM, simendsjo wrote:
Ok, I yield. I just happened to write
foreach(i; 10 .. 0)
and was suprised that it didn't give any warnings or errors.
But I still somewhat stand by my point: Dead code is illegal in D,
(No it is not. Some forms of dead code are detected by DMD,
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 20:21:30 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
I wouldn't call it randomly. In that case you should call it
randomly that it suddenly doesn't run once you try to step
downward.
I didn't had time to work more on the iota. Perhaps after 2.065
is out I can resume working on that,
On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 19:22:38 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
Should the following two uses be a compile-time error?
foreach(i; 10 .. 0) // Never executes
foreach(i; iota(10, 0)) // .. neither does this
I would like the second to either be a compile-time error or
automagically use a
12 matches
Mail list logo
