Remove foreach_reverse (was Re: Remove complex and imaginary types?)

[Matti Niemenmaa]

bearophile wrote:
> naryl:
>> Why don't we remove or at least shorten foreach_reverse too?
> 
> Removing: -1. It's actually useful (I'd like to see more iteration
> constructs, not less).
> 
> Shortening: it's long, so maybe yes, if you/someons find(s) something better.
> Do you have some suggestions?

Ever since the language got the ability to use delegates as the foreach 
aggregate, there has been no need for foreach_reverse. Ironically enough, that's 
the same release foreach_reverse was added (0.170).

Arrays should just have a built-in .reverseview (or whatever) property which 
returns a delegate for iterating over the array in reverse order.

And add .sortedview while you're at it.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi