On 04/04/2012 12:06 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-04-04 04:11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
foreach(i; 0 .. 5)
is more efficient only because it has _nothing_ to do with arrays.
Generalizing
the syntax wouldn't help at all, and if it were generalized, it would
arguably
have to be consistent in all of its uses, in which case
foreach(i; 0 .. 5)
would become identical to
foreach(i; [0, 1, 2, 3, 4])
and therefore less efficient. Generalizing .. just doesn't make sense.
Why couldn't the .. syntax be syntax sugar for some kind of library
implement range type, just as what is done with associative arrays.
...
I think this would be completely backwards compatible as well.
It would be awkward to introduce it in a backwards compatible way,
because currently '..' binds weaker than any operator.
auto x = 0..10; // ok
auto y = 0..10, z = 2; // error, z not defined
x = 0..11; // error: expression '11' has no effect
