On Wednesday, 20 July 2016 at 15:40:16 UTC, Lobelia Noakes wrote:
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:58:59 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:57:21 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
actually, `foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:58:59 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:57:21 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
actually, `foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is
*reusing* *existing* *variable*. most of the time you can put
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
`foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is *reusing* *existing*
*variable*.
+1
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 02:04:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
(x) => x; // defines a new variable
foreach isn't alone.
compiler should allow `auto` here too.
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:57:21 UTC, pineapple wrote:
Chipping in my agreement. foreach(x; y) makes as much syntactic
sense as for(x = 0; x < y; x++) where x was not previously
defined. One does not expect something that does not look like
every other variable definition in the language to
On Sunday, 17 July 2016 at 01:57:21 UTC, pineapple wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
actually, `foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is *reusing*
*existing* *variable*. most of the time you can put
`immutable` or something like that there to note that it is
not
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 22:05:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
actually, `foreach (v; rng)` looks like `foreach` is *reusing*
*existing* *variable*. most of the time you can put `immutable`
or something like that there to note that it is not reusing
(purely cosmetical thing), but sometimes you
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 21:39:42 UTC, cym13 wrote:
However auto should be allowed here. You are defining a
variable and the fact that it's in a foreach shouldn't be of
any importance. The language should enforce orthogonality of
orthogonal things, not break it. A variable definition in a
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 21:39:42 UTC, cym13 wrote:
A variable definition in a foreach
-> A variable definition *with auto* in a foreach
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 20:00:39 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:11:34 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 20:00:39 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:11:34 UTC, cym13 wrote:
[...]
It's not arbitrary. It keeps the language simple and easy to
read. After all the entire auto keyword is just there, because
the compiler needs a keyword and in loops it's
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:11:34 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
Arbitrary limitation. If you want to say how
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
.. but why?
because. i've lost that fight too.
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
Arbitrary limitation. If you want to say how surprising and
uselessly limiting it is wait at the end of the
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 14:00:56 UTC, dom wrote:
foreach(auto v; msg)
writeln(v);
gives an error that a basic type is expected
foreach(v; msg)
writeln(v);
works
.. but why?
`Note: The ForeachTypeAttribute is implicit, and when a type is
not specified, it is inferred. In that
15 matches
Mail list logo
