extended foreach?

[mandel]

That's actually the way I do it at the moment.
But it is clumsy to expose an interator class/struct for that.
Calling opApply with additional arguments
would result in a more native and simpler solution.
There would be also only stack allocated memory (not sure, but I give that argument a shot :P).
It's also seems to be an artificial limitation. - Does someone know if I'm right here?

class Foo
{
  int opApply(int delegate(ref Type [, ...]) dg, uint arg = 0)
  {
	int ret = 0;
	foreach(V item; items)
	{
		if(item.size <= size) break; //use of an additional argument for filtering
		if(uint ret = dg(item)) break;
	}
	return ret;
  }
}



Daniel Keep Wrote:

> 
> 
> Mandel wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I like to know if this feature request is even feasible
> > and what others think of it, of course.
> > 
> > class Foo {
> >    int opApply(int delegate(ref Type [, ...]) dg, float f, char[] s) {
> >        /*...*/
> >    }
> > }
> > 
> > float f = 1.5;
> > char[] s = "abc";
> > foreach(x; xs; foo; f, s)
> > {
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > The idea is to pass additional values from foreach to opApply.
> > Would be great to filter values in opApply for example.
> > (or even chaining foreach in opApply...)
> 
> Usually, this is done by having a member function that returns a struct
> (or class instance) that has an opApply on it.  For instace:
> 
> class Foo {
>     struct FooIter {
>         float f;
>         char[] s;
>         int opApply(int delegate(ref Type [, ...]) dg) { /* ... */ }
>     }
>     FooIter myIter(float f, char[] s) {
>         return FooIter(f,s);
>     }
> }
> 
> float f = 1.5;
> char[] s = "abc";
> foreach(x, xs; foo.myIter(f, s))
> {
> }
> 
> -- 
> int getRandomNumber()
> {
>     return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
>               // guaranteed to be random.
> }
> 
> http://xkcd.com/
> 
> v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
> i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/