Signed-unsigned comparisons in Phobos

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:36:32 +0200, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2011-08-12 20:26, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:19:09 +0200, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise at gmx.de>  
>> wrote:
>>> This way it is actually fun to cripple the for loop, yay. Still if
>>> people started to argue that it is a bad idea to modify variables in
>>> the condition I'd silently agree. So a look at "foreach_reverse (i;
>>> 0..x.length) {...}" might be worth it. I guess after a while I will
>>> get used to it. It even reminds me of the Pascal "for"-syntax a bit,
>>> which is "for i := 0 to 9 do ...". It has no receipt for the reverse
>>> zero-length array loop though as far as I know.
>>
>> Pascal has downto:
>>
>> for i := 9 downto 0 do ...
>
> If D had uniform function call syntax and good looking delegate literals  
> we could do this:
>
> 0.upto(9 ; i) {
>      // do something with i
> }
>
> 9.downto(0 ; i) {
>      // do something with i
> }

If D had only UFCS of the two, we could do this:

foreach (i; 0.iota(9)) {
    // stuffs
}

foreach (i; 9.iota(0,-1)) {
    // stuffs
}

But yeah, the delegate syntax would also be very nice. I'm not so sure
this is its killer use, though. :p

-- 
   Simen