Ideas for shortening "foreach_reverse" (was Re: I have a suggestion.)

[Charles D Hixson]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Justin C Calvarese wrote:
>> YonggangLuo wrote:
>>> i think it's will be a good idea to replace "foreach_reverse" with  
>>> "frr".
>>> "foreach_reverse" is too long as a keyword
>>
>> I agree that foreach_reverse is way too long for a keyword. Also, it 
>> has that unslightly underscore.
>>
>> I think that frr is a little too short. Since it's a keyword that will 
>> be rarely used, newcomers to D will likely get confused.
>>
>> I'm "voting" for foreachrev, but here's a whole list of decent 
>> alternatives to the current "foreach_reverse" mess:
>>
>> 1. foreachrev
>> 2. rforeach
>> 3. revforeach
> 
> I still like:
> 
> foreach - unordered?
> foreach(fwd) - explicitly forward
> foreach(rev) - explicitly reverse
> foreach(any) - unordered
> 
> 
> Sean
This has the additional benefit that when multi-processors 
become really common, D will have already built in a construct 
for parallelization...the any option.  I suppose that one 
*could* add a "parallelize" option, but that could *only* be 
advisory, and as such any is just as good.