On 9/20/13 11:21 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
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 :-)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11077
Andrei
