suggested change to foreach index

[Regan Heath]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:27:51 -0400, Ameer Armaly <ameer_armaly at hotmail.com>  
wrote:
> "BCS" <BCS at pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:e67p90$rol$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> I often find my self doing something like this:
>>
>> <code>
>> int i
>> char[] arr;
>>
>> foreach(int j, c; arr)
>> if(' ' == c)
>> {
>> i=j; // copy j out of foreach's scope
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> if(i < arr.length)
>> {
>> arr = arr.dup;
>> // use copy of j
>> foreach(inout c; arr[i..$])
>> if(' ' == c) c = '_';
>> }
>> </code>
>>
>> In this case it would be nice to be able to use a variable in the outer
>> scope as the index in the foreach, e.i.
>>
>> <code>
>> int i
>> char[] arr;
>>
>> foreach(int i, c; arr)
>> if(' ' == c)
>> break;
>>
>> // i keeps the value from the last time through
>> ...
>> </code>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts comments??
> Wouldn't a function return serve a similar if not identical purpose?

Requiring you to put the foreach in a function? Probably.

At the very least we need some way to indicate we want the behaviour as it  
really shouldn't use variables external to the foreach by default. eg.

int i;
char[] arr;

foreach(inout int i, c; arr) {}

or

foreach(inout i, c; arr) {}

or something. Something/anything to indicate the 'i' in the loop is the  
'i' from outside the loop. Or, perhaps another block which is executed  
with the foreach variables when the loop doesn't terminate normally:

foreach(int i, c; arr) {
}
else {
   //comes here if you use 'break' in foreach
   //i, and c have the last values they had in the loop.
   //what happens in the 'inout c' cases?
}

Regan