foreach

[Daniel Kozák via Digitalmars-d]

V Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:33:37 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> napsáno:

> 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.

No problem for me:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23950796/how-to-repeat-a-statement-n-times-simple-loop/23952012#23952012