On Saturday, 10 August 2013 at 01:33:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
`foreach_reverse` is a major design mistake considering the
fact that it requires a very specific range type, contrary to
normal range. For lot of ranges concept of iteration order is
simply not defined making `foreach_reverse` useless
`foreach_reverse` is a major design mistake considering the fact
that it requires a very specific range type, contrary to normal
range. For lot of ranges concept of iteration order is simply not
defined making `foreach_reverse` useless. And in rare cases when
it is needed, it can be replaced wi
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 15:20:38 UTC, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 14:51:05 UTC, Tyler Jameson Little
wrote:
Also, I don't particularly like for_reverse, since you can't
use a traditional for-loop syntax with for_reverse:
// would be syntax error
for_reverse (i
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 14:51:05 UTC, Tyler Jameson Little
wrote:
Also, I don't particularly like for_reverse, since you can't
use a traditional for-loop syntax with for_reverse:
// would be syntax error
for_reverse (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {}
What do you think would be proper semantic
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 03:30:16 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:
I suggest that change keyword *for_each* to *for* since *for*
is clear enough and
less letters, like C++11 does.
Decent suggestion, but I don't think Walter, Andrei or any of the
committers want to break everyone's code just to shorten
On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:43:08 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 8/9/13, SteveGuo wrote:
> > I suggest that change keyword *for_each* to *for* since *for* is
> > clear enough and
> > less letters, like C++11 does.
>
> Not gonna happen. What's this obsession with less letters? foreach is
> common a
On 8/9/13, SteveGuo wrote:
> I suggest that change keyword *for_each* to *for* since *for* is
> clear enough and
> less letters, like C++11 does.
Not gonna happen. What's this obsession with less letters? foreach is
common among many modern languages anyway.
I suggest that change keyword *for_each* to *for* since *for* is
clear enough and
less letters, like C++11 does.
