http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8155
--- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-06-05 15:01:26 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Yes let's break code You can't assume Phobos will not change. Some parts of Phobos were designed very quickly, and not at their best. We need deprecation patterns, new better things to be introduced and older less-well designed things deprecated and removed. In hindsight the decision to add lockstep() was a mistake, it was based on a limit of D language that Hara has quickly removed, allowing zip() to cover most usages of lockstep(). Now lockstep() is redundant because you are able to avoid it just calling another function. As you know Walter prefers to not add shallow functions to Phobos. If you assume lockstep() is not present in Phobos and you want to add it, people will say you that zip().enumerate() (or other similarly simple solutions) is able to replace it, so it's too much shallow to add it. In my opinion to add a shallow function to Phobos it must replace a very often used pattern, as filter().array(). While I think zip().enumerate() is not one of such very common patterns. > and make new code more verbose, It's a little more verbose, but the need of a index is not common when you zip iterables, so the _total_ increase of code is very small. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
