Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:for 0..10 -> $x { ... } is treated as for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I think I will:
Was my specific proposal entirely serious: only in that it was an attempt to broaden the box for the discussion of semantics of coercion ranges. One of the banes of my life is to undo the sequential mindset that so many programmers have. I like to point out that "sequentialization is an optimization to make programs run faster on Von-Neumann architectures". Often, it's premature. Most of the time it doesn't matter (compilers, and even HW, can extract ILP), but every now and again it results in an unfortunate barrier in solution-space.
Why do we assume that ranges iterate in .succ order -- or even that they iterate as integers (and are finite). Why not iterate as a top-down breadth-first generation of a Cantor set? etc. Does the language need to choose a default, or is it better require the programmer to state how they want to coerce the range to the seq. Ten years from now, we'll keep needing to refer questions to the .. Vs ... faq.
