On 2010-02-04 12:19:42 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
bearophile wrote:
Simen kjaeraas:
Of the above, I feel (b) is the correct solution, and I understand
it has already been implemented in svn.
Yes, I presume he was mostly looking for a justification of his ideas
he has already accepted and even partially implemented :-)
I am ready to throw away the implementation as soon as a better idea
comes around. As other times, I operated the change to see how things
feel with the new approach.
Has any thought been given to foreach? Currently all these work for strings:
foreach (c; "abc") { } // typeof(c) is 'char'
foreach (char c; "abc") { }
foreach (wchar c; "abc") { }
foreach (dchar c; "abc") { }
I'm concerned about the first case where the element type is implicit.
The implicit element type is (currently) the code units. If the range
use code points 'dchar' as the element type, then I think foreach needs
to be changed so that the default element type is 'dchar' too (in the
first line of my example). Having ranges and foreach disagree on this
would be very inconsistent. Of course you should be allowed to iterate
using 'char' and 'wchar' too.
I think this would fit nicely. I was surprised at first when learning D
and I noticed that foreach didn't do this, that I had to explicitly has
for it.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
