foreach

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/06/14 17:00, 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.
>

The only reason I can see to make this change is to make it more 
consistent with "for". But I don't know if it's "for" that is 
inconsistent with everything else or if it's "foreach" that is 
inconsistent with "for".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg