foreach

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/12/2014 11:00 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I often find myself wanting to write this:
>    foreach(; 0..n) {}
> In the case that I just want to do something n times and I don't
> actually care about the loop counter, but this doesn't compile.
>
> You can do this:
>    for(;;) {}
>
> If 'for' lets you omit any of the loop terms, surely it makes sense
> that foreach would allow you to omit the first term as well?
> I see no need to declare a superfluous loop counter when it is unused.
>

I can't imagine this has ever been a significant issue for anyone. But 
that said, I certainly can't disagree with it, and wouldn't object to it.