On Tuesday, 16 March 2021 at 12:49:13 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
I find myself writing
foreach (_; 0 .. n)
doSomething(); // no using the variable `_`
.
What about relaxing the syntax to allow
foreach (; 0 .. n)
and/or
foreach (0 .. n)
?
Thereby making the `ForeachTypeList` of `AggregateForeach` in
the grammar rule [1] optional.
[1] https://dlang.org/spec/statement.html#foreach-statement
The gain to altering the foreach statement is minimal since _ is
a nice convention to use if you don't need the value of the
counter.
Something like this gives cleaner code:
replicate(100) {
// do stuff with side effects
}
I don't know if it would be an opportunity for a compiler
optimization (probably not).
