On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:18:08AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > I don't perceive why this is so common a need as to require special > magic. And for those cases, a three-part for(;;) loop handles it, > since that tells you the index number directly. Could someone > explain why they need this? It seems rare. I don't think anyone *needs* this, it would just be a nice syntactic sugar. Haven't you ever coded a foreach loop only to realize later that you need the index of the thing you've iterated to? Wouldn't it be nice to just have access to it rather than hoop-jumping a little? -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, p... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, p... Steve Simmons
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statemen... John McNamara
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for stat... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for ... John McNamara
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for stat... Steve Simmons
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for stat... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counte... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit co... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counte... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for stat... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, p... John McNamara