foreach

[Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/12/14, 3:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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.
>

In Ruby/Crystal you can do:

n.times do
   # code
end

In D you have to write:

for(unused; 0..n) {
   # code
}

Doesn't it bother you that your language requires more typing and 
defining dummy variables just for doing something N times?

Note, I'm just trying to point out that small improvements in the 
programmers life will be thanked a lot and more people will join your 
language.