foreach_reverse is better than ever

[Yigal Chripun]

On 14/02/2010 20:07, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Mike James wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>>> Michel Fortin, el 14 de febrero a las 07:48 me escribiste:
>>>>> On 2010-02-14 05:12:41 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It iterates backwards, all the way back to the 50s. I think
>>>>>> "reverse" is a much better word.
>>>>> Agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> My dictionary says: "retro": imitative of a style, fashion, or
>>>>> design from the recent past.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an amusing name in the way Andrei likes it, but the meaning
>>>>> isn't very clear. "reverse" would be a better name.
>>>> This is a pattern in Andrei, which I think it really hurts the language
>>>> (the names are very clever and funny, but that shouldn't be the
>>>> point of
>>>> a name, a name should be clear).
>>> At least in this case being funny was not the point. I needed a name
>>> that was (a) short, (b) different from "reverse", (c) memorable. It
>>> is understood that other paint colors are available, but please don't
>>> forget to give a little love to the painter. :o) It would be of
>>> course best if names that arguably hurt the language were changed, so
>>> please compile a list.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> 1. Contrawise
>> 2. Rearward
>> 3. AssBackwards
>> 4. Reorientated
>> 5. Turnedabout
>> 6. Turnedaround
>> 7. Inversified
>> 8. Flipped
>> 9. Refluxed
>> 10. VolteFace
>>
>> or how about Reverse...
>>
>> -=mike=-
>
> I meant a list with other cases (aside from this particular one) in
> which choices of names were unfortunate.
>
> I thought the following is clear but let me state it: in this particular
> case, using "reverse" is not desirable because the name already exists
> as an array property. If we drop the existing feature and choose
> "reverse" for the new feature, code will silently change semantics.
>
>
> Andrei

What's the change in semantics that you're worried about?
doesn't D's built in arrays conform to the range interface?
I'd expect that array.reverse would be the same as retro(array).