'int' is enough for 'length' to migrate code from x86 to x64

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 03:09:59 +0000
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 21 November 2014 at 09:47:32 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> > On Friday, 21 November 2014 at 09:37:50 UTC, Walter Bright 
> > wrote:
> >> I thought everyone hated foreach_reverse!
> >
> > I dislike foreach_reverse;
> > 1. it's a keyword with an underscore in it;
> > 2. complicates implementation of foreach and parsing.
> > 3. key_word with under_score
> 
> These are compiler implementation issue and all solvable. People 
> don't give a shit about how the compiler work and rightly so. The 
> language is made to fit need of the user, not the needs of the 
> implementer.
`foreach (auto n; ...)` anyone? and `foreach (; ...)`? nope. "cosmetic
changes aren't needed". this is clearly "made for implementer".

luckyly, it's not me who will try explain to newcomers why they has new
variable declaration in `foreach` which looks like variable reusing,
why they must invent new variable name for each nested `foreach` and so
on.

but please, don't tell me about "solvable" -- all this "solvable" only
in the sense "make your own fork and fix it. ah, and support your fork.
and don't forget that your code cannot be used with vanilla compiler
anymore." ok for me, but for others?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20141122/a86ef133/attachment-0001.sig>