foreach

[Rene Zwanenburg via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 09:29:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'd honestly rather see for(;;) {} removed than have foreach(; 
> 0..n) {} added.
> I don't like special cases like like these.
>
> And I really don't think that it's a big deal to have to 
> provide a counter
> variable that you're not going to explicitly use. I can see why 
> you'd want to
> be able to skip providing the variable, but all it's saving you 
> is typing one
> character, which doesn't at all seem worth it to me.
>
> And if the argument is that the compiler could potentially make 
> optimizations
> based on the lack of a variable, I would argue that the 
> compiler should be
> able to make those same optimizations based on the fact that 
> the variable is
> unused beyond being iterated over.
>
> So, while I can see why you might like this, it seems like an 
> awfully small
> thing for you to try and claim it's a big improvement.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

It's not about saving typing or optimisations. When someone omits 
a parameter name when implementing an interface, or even after it 
is no longer needed in a regular function, I know I don't have to 
look for uses of that variable inside the function. The same 
could be true for non trivial loops.

I don't have very strong feelings on the subject either way, but 
IMO this is a valid point.