Differentiate const flavors using CASE?

[kris]

janderson wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> 
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:53:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a random thought:
>>>> What about const vs CONST?
>>>> The upcase version obviously being the more const of the two.
>>>> The original proposal played with punctuation, and we've talked 
>>>> plenty about spelling, but we haven't talked about playing with 
>>>> case.  It would be an odd-ball among keywords, admittedly, but if 
>>>> you asked 100 people which of 'const' and 'CONST' was the most 
>>>> constant you'd probably get 100 votes for 'CONST'.  And he could 
>>>> become good friends with foreach_reverse, the other odd-ball keyword 
>>>> who is disparaged by the other kids because of his obesity and the 
>>>> big staple in his belly button.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL ... Now that *is* funny.
>>
>>
>> Yah :o). Speaking of foreach_reverse, probably it would be wise to 
>> lobby Walter to deprecate it in favor of foreach(reverse) (item ; 
>> collection) { ... }. The keyword(extra) syntax is definitely becoming 
>> a D signature syntax.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> 
> //Using your other suggestion:
> foreach(reverse) (item ; collection) (item2 ; x->GetColection(b)) (item3 
> ; collection3)
> {
> 
> }
> 
> Its starting to get hard and harder to read IMO.
> 
> Although perhaps the reverse could be come sort of iterator mechanism. 
> You could define what order items are visited.  I mean, reverse would 
> not be a keyword at all and would exist in some library.  Although I'm 
> not sure how it would be implemented, and it may defeat the purpose of 
> foreach_reverse being optimal.
> 
> Just a thought.

shouldn't this perhaps be something like:

foreach (item; collection) (item2; x->GetColection(b))(item3; 
collection3.reverse)
{

}


Now you can select a direction on the each container?

Naturally, this would avoid performing a copy of the content, and the 
basic approach is quite easy to handle via a struct containing an 
opApply(). It would open the door to alternate iteration approaches 
also, such as skipping entries, merging, or whatever.

Tango does something vaguely like this for the text-iterators in 
tango.text.Util