On 2012-52-29 20:12, mist wrote:
Not clever enough to expand like this though:
map!( (a, b) => a+b )( zip(Range1, Range2) );
Using a => a[0]+a[1] is not that big deal though.
That oughta be doable. However, seeing as std.functional only contains
unaryFun and binaryFun (dranges has naryFun),
Not clever enough to expand like this though:
map!( (a, b) => a+b )( zip(Range1, Range2) );
Using a => a[0]+a[1] is not that big deal though.
On Saturday, 29 December 2012 at 17:58:55 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/29/2012 06:19 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> foreach (a; zip(A, B) ) {
> // Use a[0
On 12/29/2012 06:19 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> foreach (a; zip(A, B) ) {
> // Use a[0] and a[1] here.
> }
>
> There have been suggestions to better integrate tuples in the language,
> so in the future zip may have all the advantages of lockstep (and vice
> versa), but don't cross your fingers.
Any objections to documentation update to cross-reference zip and
lockstep to each other? Was not even searching for first one when
found lockstep, huh.
On Saturday, 29 December 2012 at 14:19:39 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas
wrote:
On 2012-48-29 14:12, mist wrote:
I basically want to be able to do s
On 2012-48-29 14:12, mist wrote:
I basically want to be able to do stuff like this:
auto result = map!( (a, b) => a+b )( lockstep(range1, range2) );
Are there any standard short ways to wrap an input range around struct
with opApply (which Lockstep is)?
Also what about redesigning Lockstep
I basically want to be able to do stuff like this:
auto result = map!( (a, b) => a+b )( lockstep(range1, range2) );
Are there any standard short ways to wrap an input range around
struct with opApply (which Lockstep is)?
Also what about redesigning Lockstep as a proper range? I could
do a pul
