On 02/09/2011 04:08 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
AUIU, foreach has both of these forms:foreach(x; 0..5) foreach(x; someRange) Also, we have: auto someRange = iota(0, 5); Little idea: How about this genralized lowering? 0..5 // iota says "Gimme some sugar, baby." // and thus it is lowered to -> iota(0, 5) Of course, if that hinders optimization for foreach(x; 0..5), then the compiler could just "optimize" that particular case by not bothering with the lowering and doing as it currently does. But the benefit is things like this: // Stealing Andrei's "filter even" example: filter!`a % 2 == 0`(iota(1, 5)) // Give iota some sugar, baby: filter!`a % 2 == 0`(1..5) I suppose the obnoxious float-literal definition could get in the way, but when is it ever legal syntax in D to have two numeric literals next to each other? (And foreach seems ok with it anyway) Pardon if this has already been suggested.
I like this. Maybe a slightly different approach would be for both 1..5 and iota(1,5) to be expressions for a simple and range-semantic-compatible struct-like thingy. Then, actually, iota would be superfluous, but some may still like it syntactically or semantically (because Iota is explicitely defined as a range type). Side-question: what is actually 1..5 as of now for a thing? Or is it conceptually "unconstructed" by rewriting to (probably) an ordinary for loop? Anyway, the point above applies to language-side semantics, whatever optimisation may happen.
Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
