• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Jun 15 2011
• Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> Jun 15 2011

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

bearophile Wrote:

 In my opinion this is a bit bug-prone because in real code there is some risk
of modifying the iteration variable "i" by mistake. (Note: here I am not
talking about D for() loops. They are OK, their semantics is transparent
enough. foreach() loops are less transparent and they *look* higher level than
for() loops). I'd like the iteration variable to act as being a copy of the
true loop variable as in Python.


What if user wants foreach(i;0..10) to be a shortcut for for(i=0;i<10;i++) and
still modify the variable with the exception that bounds are evaluated only
once? :)
Well, yeah, this makes little sense.

 If this is a bit bad for foreach performance, then I'd like the compiler to
forbid the mutation of the foreach iteration variable inside the foreach body.
Is this even possible?


is iota a solution here?

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 15.06.2011 16:37, schrieb Kagamin:
 bearophile Wrote:
 
 In my opinion this is a bit bug-prone because in real code there is some risk
of modifying the iteration variable "i" by mistake. (Note: here I am not
talking about D for() loops. They are OK, their semantics is transparent
enough. foreach() loops are less transparent and they *look* higher level than
for() loops). I'd like the iteration variable to act as being a copy of the
true loop variable as in Python.


 What if user wants foreach(i;0..10) to be a shortcut for for(i=0;i<10;i++) and
still modify the variable with the exception that bounds are evaluated only
once? :)
 Well, yeah, this makes little sense.


maybe with foreach(ref i;0..10) ?

 
 If this is a bit bad for foreach performance, then I'd like the compiler to
forbid the mutation of the foreach iteration variable inside the foreach body.
Is this even possible?


 is iota a solution here?