Performance penalty for using ranges

[monarch_dodra]

On Sunday, 25 August 2013 at 21:17:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 8/25/13 12:46 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On 25/08/13 21:10, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>> It never clashes untill you nest two foreach, and then you 
>>> have to use
>>> __ ...
>>>
>>> foreach( _ ; 0 .. M)
>>>     foreach( __ ; 0 .. N)
>>>         ...
>>>
>>> I have an enhancement request to simply allow anonymous 
>>> iteration:
>>> foreach( ; 0 .. N)
>>>
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9009
>>
>> Good call. :-)
>
> I don't see why the excitement around anonymous bindings. It's 
> a rare case and it's not like we're running out of symbols, 
> particularly given they're by definition written only once :o).
>
> Andrei

I think "the excitement" is an overstatement. The subject comes 
up every now and then. The "foreach(_)" semantic is getting a bit 
more common, but it tends to confuse newbies, that ask about it. 
At that point, I simply point out that there is this ER, and 
people tend to agree it would be a nice addition.

I agree it's not like its a real problem or anything, but it 
would be nice to have. Is all.