• Andrei Alexandrescu (3/3) Nov 18 2009 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses...
• Bill Baxter (4/7) Nov 18 2009 Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?
• Andrei Alexandrescu (5/13) Nov 18 2009 Yah. I know we all think it's an interesting path to pursue, but we'd
• Clay Smith (3/18) Nov 18 2009 If this is the reason, thanks for prioritizing good design over feature
• Jesse Phillips (4/8) Nov 18 2009 Just a clarification request. static foreach will be part of the D2 spec...
• Andrei Alexandrescu (4/14) Nov 18 2009 It will go away from TDPL, as much as it pains me (I had a killer
• Trass3r (10/13) Nov 19 2009 Please don't tell me this would solve the

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses 
enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.

Andrei

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
 enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.

 Andrei

Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?

--bb

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
 enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.

 Andrei

 
 Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?

Yah. I know we all think it's an interesting path to pursue, but we'd 
rather do a good design instead of hastily planting something we'll be 
sorry about later.

Andrei

Clay Smith <clay.smith.r gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
 enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.

 Andrei

 Is it trouble with scopes and hygenic variable naming?

 
 Yah. I know we all think it's an interesting path to pursue, but we'd 
 rather do a good design instead of hastily planting something we'll be 
 sorry about later.
 
 Andrei

If this is the reason, thanks for prioritizing good design over feature 
creep. : )

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:15:34 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
 enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
 
 Andrei

Just a clarification request. static foreach will be part of the D2 spec 
but not implemented prior to release? I ask because post-D2 sounds like 
D3, but present in TDPL sounds like part of the spec for D2.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Jesse Phillips wrote:
 On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:15:34 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses
 enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.

 Andrei

 
 Just a clarification request. static foreach will be part of the D2 spec 
 but not implemented prior to release? I ask because post-D2 sounds like 
 D3, but present in TDPL sounds like part of the spec for D2.

It will go away from TDPL, as much as it pains me (I had a killer 
example using it).

Andrei

Trass3r <mrmocool gmx.de> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu schrieb:
 Walter and I agreed that static foreach, although present in TDPL, poses 
 enough new problems to warrant its deferral to post-D2.
 

Please don't tell me this would solve the

foreach (member; __traits (allMembers, Class))
{
     foreach (overload; __traits (getVirtualFunctions, Class, member))
     {
         // do stuff
     }
}

problem. I've been waiting for this for ages ;)