suggested change to foreach index

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Deewiant" <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e6ev28$o1k$1 at digitaldaemon.com...

> I guess I'm the only one that doesn't like this idea, then. I think "auto" 
> is
> overloaded enough as it is; I'm still waiting for "var" or some such for 
> type
> inference.

I'd really like something else for type inference too, but until that 
happens, "auto" would make the most sense.  I think 'var' or something along 
those lines would be better; and it would be best if it functioned _as a 
type_ which would just stand for a "placeholder" type until the type could 
be determined in the semantic pass.

> And I always thought it was obvious that foreach() uses its own index, but 
> that
> might be since I've only recently (say, a few days back) begun to use type
> inference with it. When you write "size_t i, type x; something" it's 
> obvious
> enough, and when I write "i, type x" I think of the longer form, realising 
> it's
> short for just that.

Well, keep in mind that many of my proposals are based on my virulent hatred 
of most uses of type inference ;)  It's bad enough when people start 
overusing auto; it's worse when it's not even obvious that a new variable is 
being declared as well!

> Personally, I'd prefer "out" instead of "inout" or "alias", but that's 
> just me. <g>

That's good too, but the best would be if/when we get a true type-inference 
keyword for use with index inference, and then nothing when you want to use 
the outer scope's variable (to be consistent with the behavior of for 
loops).