On 20/09/13 19:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/20/13 9:28 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
The canonical example would be something like,

     foreach (i; iota(10)) { ... }

which in theory shouldn't be any slower than,

     foreach (i; 0 .. 10) { ... }

but in practice is, no matter what the compiler.

I think I know how to fix that. I hypothesize it's about using actual increment
instead of a stored value "step" for the particular case when step is 1.

Excellent, that'll be great to see :-)

Reply via email to