Adam D. Ruppe Wrote: > foobar wrote: > > D basically re-writes foreach with opApply into the ruby version > which is why Ruby is *BETTER* > > You missed the point: there is no "Ruby version". They are the > same thing. > By "ruby version" I meant the syntax. I agreed already that they are implemented the same.
> > foreach to me is a redundant obfuscation > > How can it be redundant? It's got the same elements the same > number of times. > incorrect. The difference is that D adds "special" syntax for this whereas it's just a plain method in Ruby. By calling opApply directly you get the direct "ruby version" without the redundant use of a keyword + compiler transformation. > > rofl.copter.each |lol| > spam > end > > > foreach(lol; rofl.copter) > spam > > > Same elements, just reordered. > > > I don't know about the each() method itself. I've never written > one, but I suspect it is virtually identical to opApply too. opApply *is* the same thing as Ruby's each method.