suggested change to foreach index

[Deewiant]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> What's weird to me is if I do this:
> 
>     void main()
>     {
>         int    i;
>         char[] arr = "abc def";
> 
>         foreach( i, c; arr )
>         {
>             printf( "%i\n", i );
>             if(' ' == c)
>                 break;
>         }
>         printf( "\n%i\n", i );
>     }
> 
> Then the output is:
> 
>     0
>     1
>     2
>     3
> 
>     0
> 
> So the code compiles without a type for i in the foreach, but rather
> than use the instance of i in the surrounding scope a local value is
> used instead.  The spec isn't clear on what should happen here, but I
> would have guessed that the final value displayed would be 3, not 0.
> 
> 
> Sean

It creates a new scope, just like for loops:

int i = 5;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
	writefln(i); // 0 to 2
writefln(i); // 5

I don't know about the spec's opinion, but this is how it has always worked,
both with for and foreach, and I have a lot of code that relies on this behaviour.

The "inout" suggested elsewhere in the thread by Regan Heath seems like a good
solution to me.