http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||la...@virginia.edu
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #28 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2013-03-06 21:32:07 PST ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #26 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2013-01-24 09:56:33 PST ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #25 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-11-13 14:38:59 PST ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #24 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-03 07:06:12 PDT ---
See also:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/znbtczbgipqqzllaf...@forum.dlang.org
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #23 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-11-02 21:12:30 PDT
---
*** Issue 6214 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #22 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2012-06-22 07:37:40 PDT ---
Commits pushed to master
Great. So what's the time frame until deprecation, 6 month?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #19 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-06-21 08:32:51 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #18)
How about?
Sounds great. It doesn't break code and allows us to fix this finally.
foreach (i, item; array)
Yeah, it should apply to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #20 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-06-21 08:35:11 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
How about?
Sounds great. It doesn't break code and allows us to fix this finally.
foreach (i, item;
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #21 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-06-21 14:21:51 PDT ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #18 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2012-06-19 06:10:15 PDT ---
How about?
Sounds great. It doesn't break code and allows us to fix this finally.
foreach (i, item; array)
Yeah, it should apply to the index variable as well.
--
Configure
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #17 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-06-17 15:31:45 PDT ---
Just a note.
void main() {
import std.stdio;
auto array = [10, 20, 30, 40, 50];
foreach (i, item; array) {
writeln(item);
i++;
}
}
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #12 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-06-16 05:07:21 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
They are the phases to change behavior.
I see.
I think we should allow modifying loop
variable in foreach body, but it should not affect to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #13 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-06-16 05:14:39 PDT ---
If phase 3 will be accepted, I hope this syntax too will be accepted:
foreach (const i; 0 .. 10) {}
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #14 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-06-16 05:15:07 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
In my point of view, as a newcomer to D, more bug-prone is the current
behavior.
Of course. But here the comparison wasn't between the current
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #15 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-06-16 05:27:32 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #13)
If phase 3 will be accepted, I hope this syntax too will be accepted:
foreach (const i; 0 .. 10) {}
I think it should be allowed.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #16 from Ryuichi OHORI r.97...@gmail.com 2012-06-16 09:00:32 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #14)
In my point of view, as a newcomer to D, more bug-prone is the current
behavior.
Of course. But here the comparison wasn't between
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-06-15 11:56:35 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
To reduce breaking of existing codes,
1. Warn to modifying loop variable in foreach body.
It is shown only when -w switch is specified.
2.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Ryuichi OHORI r.97...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r.97...@gmail.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
Masahiro Nakagawa repeate...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #4 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2011-09-13 00:02:29 PDT ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/377
Foreach arguments behave like function arguments. Here they don't.
The variable can be optimized out, if no altering
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6652
--- Comment #2 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2011-09-12 14:35:51 PDT ---
Making a const/immutable copy is not the right solution to this.
Instead a mutable copy of a hidden loop variable should be made.
Being a copy is the common behavior for non-ref
27 matches
Mail list logo
