Le 29/04/2012 23:54, Peter Alexander a écrit :
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 21:18:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Le 29/04/2012 03:06, bearophile a écrit :
Jonathan M Davis:
* foreach_reverse is essentially redudant at this point (not to mention
confusing if combined with delegates), since we have retro.
retro() can't replace foreach_reverse until the front-end
demonstrability produces asm code equally efficient.
Loops _must_ be fully efficient, they are a basic language construct,
this is very important. Even foreach() is sometimes not equally
efficient as a for() in some cases...
This is an implementation issue and shouldn't be an argument for
language design.
The 'sufficiently smart compiler' argument is old and invalid. Please do
not use it.
This is a case by case issue. You should consider fixing implementation
issue with implementation, and consider language design if that first
one fail. If you don't think this is right, the only rational solution
you have is to use assembly directly.
As you fail to show how this is something that isn't reasonably
implementable, you have no argument.
