• stonecobra (18/18) Jun 04 2004 Hi,
• J Anderson (4/23) Jun 04 2004 That would be nice.
• Matthew (2/8) Jun 04 2004 I can't immediately see a problem with it. As long as none transpires, c...
• Sean Kelly (5/7) Jun 05 2004 I've never had a need to iterate over an enum, but I agree that it's a n...
• stonecobra (9/14) Jun 06 2004 I think that a shortened syntax would reduce the redundancy :)

stonecobra <scott stonecobra.com> writes:

Hi,

In helping kris with the mango package (the log administrator servlet 
specifically), I came across the need to iterate over the values of an emum:

enum Level {Trace=0, Info, Warn, Error, Fatal, None};

So, I go about coding like so:

for (int i = Logger.Level.min; i < Logger.Level.max + 1; i++)
{
... //do stuff here with Level[i]
}

Why not add the ability to foreach, so that iteration is nicer:

foreach(Level l; Level)
{
... //do stuff with l
{

Wouldn't you just love to handle enums like this.  I believe iteration 
over enums is a pretty common thing.

Thanks
Scott Sanders

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

stonecobra wrote:

 Hi,

 In helping kris with the mango package (the log administrator servlet 
 specifically), I came across the need to iterate over the values of an 
 emum:

 enum Level {Trace=0, Info, Warn, Error, Fatal, None};

 So, I go about coding like so:

 for (int i = Logger.Level.min; i < Logger.Level.max + 1; i++)
 {
 ... //do stuff here with Level[i]
 }

 Why not add the ability to foreach, so that iteration is nicer:

 foreach(Level l; Level)
 {
 ... //do stuff with l
 {

 Wouldn't you just love to handle enums like this.  I believe iteration 
 over enums is a pretty common thing.

 Thanks
 Scott Sanders

That would be nice.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 Wouldn't you just love to handle enums like this.  I believe iteration
 over enums is a pretty common thing.

 Thanks
 Scott Sanders

 That would be nice.

I can't immediately see a problem with it. As long as none transpires, count my
vote.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

In article <c9r1o4$27nd$1 digitaldaemon.com>, stonecobra says...
Wouldn't you just love to handle enums like this.  I believe iteration 
over enums is a pretty common thing.

I've never had a need to iterate over an enum, but I agree that it's a nice
feature.  Unless there's some bizarre consequence I haven't thought of it has my
vote.


Sean

stonecobra <scott stonecobra.com> writes:

I think that a shortened syntax would reduce the redundancy :)

How about:

foreach(Level l)
{
...
}

That way a single argument would have to be an Enum.

Scott

stonecobra wrote:
 foreach(Level l; Level)
 {
 ... //do stuff with l
 {