• pts+d math.bme.hu (14/14) Sep 15 2003 Dear All,
• Walter (6/19) Sep 15 2003 I understand the need for this, and I think I have a way to make it work...

pts+d math.bme.hu writes:

Dear All,

I suggest an improvement over foreach on objects:

Now works: foreach (item; container) { ... }

Should be added: foreach (item; container_obj.apply1) { ... }
foreach (item; container_obj.apply2) { ... }

This way we could have iterators which iterate over only parts of the container:

-- hash.keys
-- hash.values
-- hash.pairs
-- file.lines
-- file.chars

I'd also like to suggest a syntax sugar: for and foreach could be synonyms, just
as in Perl.

pts

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

<pts+d math.bme.hu> wrote in message news:bk4nbe$2dtt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Dear All,

 I suggest an improvement over foreach on objects:

 Now works: foreach (item; container) { ... }

 Should be added: foreach (item; container_obj.apply1) { ... }
 foreach (item; container_obj.apply2) { ... }

 This way we could have iterators which iterate over only parts of the

container:
 -- hash.keys
 -- hash.values
 -- hash.pairs
 -- file.lines
 -- file.chars

I understand the need for this, and I think I have a way to make it work.
Stay tuned!

 I'd also like to suggest a syntax sugar: for and foreach could be

synonyms, just
 as in Perl.

It makes it easier to parse them if they are separate.