www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9009] New: allow foreach without identifier

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009

           Summary: allow foreach without identifier
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: monarchdodra gmail.com



Minor enhancement request, but the language should allow using "foreach"
without specifying an iteration name. THis can be useful when you want to
iterate a fixed amount, without caring about the index. For example, when you
want to "popFrontN exactly" (popFrontN is safe, so slightly slower), you'd want
to write:

foreach( ; 0 .. n ) r.popFront();

Right now, if you do this, you get:
main.d(5): Error: basic type expected, not ;
main.d(5): Error: no identifier for declarator int

for can do without declarators, I don't see why foreach can't have the above
syntax.

Just a minor ER, but I think it would make foreach that little extra user
friendly.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 12 2012
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



17:50:06 PST ---
I think this is a worthy request, although you can use "_" as an unused
iteration variable you may end up having to invent unique names with 2 or more
nested foreach loops:

foreach(_; 0 .. n ) {
    foreach(__; 0 .. m) {
        // statements
    }
}

Since foreach lowers to a for statement I think it should be possible to
implement the request.

Can we get a pre-approval from Walter/Andrei?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 11 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009






 I think this is a worthy request, although you can use "_" as an unused
 iteration variable you may end up having to invent unique names with 2 or more
 nested foreach loops:
 
 foreach(_; 0 .. n ) {
     foreach(__; 0 .. m) {
         // statements
     }
 }
 
 Since foreach lowers to a for statement I think it should be possible to
 implement the request.
 
 Can we get a pre-approval from Walter/Andrei?


BTW, given the compiler error that is spit out by DMD upon writing

//----
foreach ( ; 0 .. n )
//----
Error: basic type expected, not ;
Error: no identifier for declarator int
//----

I'd say it is either a bug that this isn't already supported anyway, or the
compiler error should be re-written.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009


bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:

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



I think this is a simple nice idea. There is no point in requiring to name a
variable that will not used. It's like in function signatures:

void foo(int, int y) {}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009




07:08:24 PST ---


 I think this is a simple nice idea. There is no point in requiring to name a
 variable that will not used. It's like in function signatures:
 
 void foo(int, int y) { }


He meant:

void foo(int, int) { }

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009


Piotr Szturmaj <pszturmaj tlen.pl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pszturmaj tlen.pl



---
I'd vote for version without a semicolon:

1. foreach (0 .. n)
2. foreach (range)

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 25 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009


Lionello Lunesu <lio+bugzilla lunesu.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lio+bugzilla lunesu.com



19:10:53 PDT ---


 I'd vote for version without a semicolon:
 
 1. foreach (0 .. n)
 2. foreach (range)


Yes, I'd prefer that too. It's what newbies would write. foreach(; ...) is just
too hard to explain to newcomers.t

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