"Lutger" <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:i5jmlc$13l...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> "Lutger" <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:i5jiap$rv...@digitalmars.com... >>> dsimcha wrote: >>>>It can still be useful if you also change the loop body a >>>> little, for example using multiple accumulators to increase instruction >>>> level >>>> parallelism, >>>> but this is hard to write generically. I can't think of a way to write >>>> such a >>>> mixin such that it would be both generic and useful. >>> >>> Probably not for performance, but as a utility for metaprogramming I >>> find >>> it >>> sometimes convenient. >> >> Isn't performance the whole point of loop unrolling? What other use could >> there be? > > I should have called it 'static foreach' >
Ok, but I guess I still don't see how that relates to a mixin for loop unrolling...? You seemed to be implying that you'd find a mixin for loop unrolling useful for something other than performace. Do you just mean using it like a "static foreach" back *before* "static foreach" was added?