Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:54:16 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:28:24 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Consider:
foreach (x; 1.0 .. 4.1) writeln(x);
foreach_reverse (x; 1.0 .. 4.1) writeln(x);
This sucks. foreach with interval for floating-point types should be
disallowed.
foreach_reverse sucks in its own right, while you're looking for
stuff to get rid of, I think it can be done better.
foreach(x; 4 .. 1 ) should do a reverse interval (and looks way more
readable).
foreach(x; array.reverse) should iterate in reverse.
for classes, using a method called reverse should work fine:
foreach(x; myclass.reverse)
Having to implement opApplyReverse is rediculous, and having a
keyword like foreach_reverse is rediculous. Reverse isn't the only
interesting iteration pattern, so why focus a whole keyword and
syntax on that?
-Steve
I agree with that, but how would you differ foreach(x; array.reverse)
from the array.reverse that modifies the array?
D'oh! I picked the wrong property name. Forgot about the existing
reverse property!
Just to clarify, I am *not* advocating that the propery way to iterate
an array in reverse is to first reverse the array!
So pick some other property name:
foreach(x; array.backwards)
or whatever. Too bad reverse is already taken :(
-Steve
sort and reverse for slices should go, by the way.
Andrei
