On 12.12.2010 20:44, foobar wrote:
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.
Just for the sake of correctness: Ruby too has a for-like loop that gets
rewritten to the block/delegate version.
for lol in rofl.copter
spam
end
This gets rewritten to
rofl.copter.each do |lol|
spam
end
As far as I know this is a construct for ease transition from C to Ruby
but is not used very much. Blocks are used very often in Ruby so using a
for-loop is kind of inconsistent style.
Happy programming
Stephan Soller
