On 1/15/11 10:47 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-01-15 22:25:47 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> said:The issue of foreach remains, but without being willing to change what foreach defaults to, you can't really fix it - though I'd suggest that we at least make it a warning to iterate over strings without specifying the type. And if foreach were made to understand Grapheme like it understands dchar, then you could do foreach(Grapheme g; str) { ... } and have the compiler warn about foreach(g; str) { ... } and tell you to use Grapheme if you want to be comparing actual characters.Walter's argument against changing this for foreach was that it'd *silently* break compatibility with existing D1 code. Changing the default to a grapheme makes this argument obsolete: since a grapheme is essentially a string, you can't compare it with char or wchar or dchar directly, so it'll break at compile time with an error and you'll have to decide what to do. So Walter would have to find another argument to defend the status quo.
I think it's poor abstraction to represent a Grapheme as a string. It should be its own type.
Andrei
