Enhancing foreach

[monarch_dodra]

On Thursday, 10 January 2013 at 03:29:21 UTC, Peter Summerland 
wrote:
>
> I don't think Jonathan was (merely) dismissing readable 
> terseness and saving typing. IMO he had more pertinent reasons 
> why
>
> foreach(i; 0 .. 5)
> {}
>
> is very nice, *as is*.

The only thing I'd want to be able to do is:
//----
foreach ( ; 0 .. 5)
{
     writeln("hello");
}
//----

If I don't need a named variable, why force me to define a symbol?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009

I know I could just use "i" and move on, but when code starts 
getting complex, and you already have i, j, k, ii, dummy etc..., 
it can make a difference.