foreach

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 13 June 2014 13:29, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:04:08 -0400, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnospam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Manu via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> personally, I would expect an 'unreferenced variable' warning for the
>>> unused loop counter. I like warnings hassling me about unused
>>> variables.
>>
>>
>> This is a good point.
>
>
> In this case, it's being "used" but not by the user.

The compiler doesn't use the result of front().


> The comparison and increment are done behind the scenes.

These use popFront() and empty(), not front().


> Note that unused variables typically
> are on function parameters and are silenced by naming the type but not the
> variable. This request is not in line with that, it is asking for
> elimination of the variable and the type, in one special case.

How is it a special case? It would be consistent with for(;;)


> If it were to be accepted, I'd push for foreach(x) instead of
> foreach(;0..x). Cut down all the noise, not just some of it.

Fine with me. I'd prefer this too.


> foreach over a range doesn't make any sense unless you are using the data.
> This is a non-issue IMO.

Who says?
You can't possibly conceive of a case where the length is the only
interesting property? (obviously I'm confronted by the case now, and
not for the first time)
You'd argue for foreach(_; 0..myRange.length)? That's pretty awkward.
Some forward ranges don't have a known length, and can only be summed
by an iteration sweep.