Re: Improving (foreach) ranges
> And the multi-dimensional slicing discussions tend to advocate mapping > a..b to [a,b]. which would be such a shame...
Re: Improving (foreach) ranges
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:58:34 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: Yeah there was a big discussion about this IIRC. I can't recall the exact link to the topic, sorry. I know one of them was during tuple discussions. i.e. to use a..b..c instead of (a,b,c) The principal rational was a) '(,)' already has other meanings in D and b) '..' would allow for multi-dimensional slicing. But people felt this was ugly. And the multi-dimensional slicing discussions tend to advocate mapping a..b to [a,b].
Re: Improving (foreach) ranges
Yeah there was a big discussion about this IIRC. I can't recall the exact link to the topic, sorry.
Improving (foreach) ranges
With the introduction of std.parallelism, I've been wondering about the following: foreach (i; 0..100) { } For most uses of foreach, you can just wrap the range in parallel(), but with a foreach range statement you can't do this. Of course iota() could be used: foreach (i; parallel(iota(0, 100))) { } But that seems inconsistent. What are people's thoughts on making the syntax a..b more general, so you can do eg: void foo(int[]); foo(0..100); Although, I seem to recall seeing this conversation elsewhere, let me know if this is the case. -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/