On 27.03.2014 09:42, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/26/2014 11:53 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
IIUC what you are proposing would be covered better by removing front
and return
the value by popFront.
Different things being ranged over make different decisions as to what
goes into each function.
Instead of forcing strong, breaking and sometimes unintuitive semantics
I don't understand what is so unintuitive about:
while (!empty) { ... front ...; popFront(); }
This loop is intuitive. Not being allowed to call empty or front
multiple times or not at all is unintuitive. They should not be named as
if they are properties then.
What I do find unintuitive and unattractive is all those flags in the
range implementation.
we could also improve dmd's optimizer.
Yes, that's true. The thing about optimizers, though, is they work on
patterns. If your code doesn't quite match the right pattern, it won't
tickle the optimization you might be expecting. The pattern for
recognizing the ROL and ROR patterns is one such.
I guess gcc doesn't use patterns here, but value propagation and notices
that all the checks are unnecessary.
