Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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?
Wait what, we have static foreach? I thought that didn't work out.
I want this to work or something like it, is it possible?
enum test = [1,2, 3];
foreach(i; 0..test.length) {
pragma(msg, to!string(test[i]) );
}
