www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 10712] New: Compiletime foreach loop

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10712

           Summary: Compiletime foreach loop
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: temtaime gmail.com



Sometimes it's neccessary to organize compiletime loop/unroll another loop for
better perfomance.

I'd make that simple template:

template IndexTuple(int e, int s = 0, T...) {
    static if(s == e)
        alias IndexTuple = T;
    else
        static if(s > e)
            alias IndexTuple = IndexTuple!(e, s - 1, T, s);
        else
            alias IndexTuple = IndexTuple!(e, s + 1, T, s);
}

Use:
foreach(idx; IndexTuple!10)
writeln(idx); // prints 0, 1, ..., 9

foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(10, 2))
writeln(idx); // prints 2, 3, ..., 9

foreach(idx; IndexTuple!-10)
writeln(idx); // prints 0, -1, ..., -9

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 25 2013
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10712


monarchdodra gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |monarchdodra gmail.com





 Sometimes it's neccessary to organize compiletime loop/unroll another loop for
 better perfomance.
 
 I'd make that simple template:
 
 template IndexTuple(int e, int s = 0, T...) {
     static if(s == e)
         alias IndexTuple = T;
     else
         static if(s > e)
             alias IndexTuple = IndexTuple!(e, s - 1, T, s);
         else
             alias IndexTuple = IndexTuple!(e, s + 1, T, s);
 }
 
 Use:
 foreach(idx; IndexTuple!10)
 writeln(idx); // prints 0, 1, ..., 9
 
 foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(10, 2))
 writeln(idx); // prints 2, 3, ..., 9
 
 foreach(idx; IndexTuple!-10)
 writeln(idx); // prints 0, -1, ..., -9


It think this already exists in phobos somewhere, though I don't remember where
though, and it probably wasn't good for public use.

In any case, I think the useage should more closely resemble what iota does.
For example:
IndexTuple!(2, 10)) vs IndexTuple!(10, 2))
or
IndexTuple!(0, -10, -1)) vs IndexTuple!(0, -10))

Arguably, iota accepts "iota(10)", but I (and others) think that is a retarded
idea, when typing "iota(0, 10)", is just and easy. I think we should avoid
making the same mistakes.

Also, it should be parameterizable on iteration type. Here is a rough sketch of
an implementation that does this.

import std.stdio, std.traits;

template IndexTuple(alias l, alias h)
{
    alias IndexTuple = IndexTupleImpl!(l, h, 1);
}
template IndexTuple(alias l, alias h, alias inc)
{
    alias IndexTuple = IndexTupleImpl!(l, h, inc);
}

template IndexTupleImpl(alias l, alias h, alias inc, T...)
{
    alias E = CommonType!(l, h, inc);
    static if (inc == 0)
        static assert(0, "increment must be non-0");
    else static if (inc > 0 && l >= h)
        alias IndexTupleImpl = T;
    else static if(inc < 0 && l <= h)
        alias IndexTupleImpl = T;
    else
        alias IndexTupleImpl = IndexTupleImpl!(cast(E)(l + inc), h, inc, T, l);
}

void main()
{
    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(0, 0))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 
    writeln();

    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(0, 10))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 0, 1, ..., 9
    writeln();

    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(2, 10))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 2, 3, ..., 9
    writeln();

    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(0, -10, -1))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 0, -1, ..., -9
    writeln();

    foreach_reverse(idx; IndexTuple!(-9, 1))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 0, -1, ..., -9
    writeln();

    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(0.5, 10))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 0.5, 1.5, ..., 9.5
    writeln();

    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!(0, 1, 0.1))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints 0 0.1 ... 0.9
    writeln();

    foreach(idx; IndexTuple!('a', cast(char)('z' + 1), cast(char)1))
    write(idx, ' '); // prints a b ... z
    writeln();
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 25 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10712


bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bearophile_hugs eml.cc



Dupe of Issue 4085 ?


 Arguably, iota accepts "iota(10)", but I (and others) think that is a retarded
 idea, when typing "iota(0, 10)", is just and easy. I think we should avoid
 making the same mistakes.


I requested that to Andrei. And I still think it's a good idea, it comes from
Python iterations:


 range(10)






[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

Discussing iota(10) is off topic here, but if you want you can explain here or
in D.learn.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 25 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10712







 range(10)






 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
 
 Discussing iota(10) is off topic here, but if you want you can explain here or
 in D.learn.


In D the single argument iota allows you to write UFCS chains like:

....reduce!(...).iota....

If you require the zero it breaks the linearity, and the zero is very common:

0.iota(....reduce!(...))....

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 25 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10712


monarchdodra gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE





 Dupe of Issue 4085 ?


Looks like it. I also like the name "Iota!(0, 10, 2)": Imediatly clear.


 Arguably, iota accepts "iota(10)", but I (and others) think that is a retarded
 idea, when typing "iota(0, 10)", is just and easy. I think we should avoid
 making the same mistakes.


 
 I requested that to Andrei. And I still think it's a good idea, it comes from
 Python iterations:
 

 range(10)






 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
 
 Discussing iota(10) is off topic here, but if you want you can explain here or
 in D.learn.


I think I remember a thread about this. But if there is existing reasons for
doing it that way, I'm not going to go against it.




 

 range(10)






 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
 
 Discussing iota(10) is off topic here, but if you want you can explain here or
 in D.learn.


 
 In D the single argument iota allows you to write UFCS chains like:
 
 ....reduce!(...).iota....


That's a good point.

Closing as dup.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 4085 ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 25 2013