DMD 0.170 release

[Charles D Hixson]

Walter Bright wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> I have to agree with Sean and Ary.  My own opinion: I don't really
>> understand why "foreach_reverse" was, once again, just tossed into
>> the language with (what seems to be) a minimum of discussion?
> 
> There was quite a bit of discussion. The thread was a bit old, but that 
> doesn't make it less relevant:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/17320.html
> 
>> Well, will you look at that.  Isn't that irony?  We got our rolls
>> reversed, I think.  I used to be Walter that was hesitant to add
>> keywords to the language.  Go figure! :D
> 
> I was reluctant to do it for a long time for that reason. It's just that 
> no better solution emerged.

To me "for each" had the implication of an unordered 
traversal, with the undertone that *sometime* when 
multi-processor machines became more prominent each iteration 
might be done on a different processor.

I'm aware that this was never the real intent...but that's the 
subtext that I got when I read the code.  This is partially 
out of a desire to allow multi-processor systems to be used 
efficiently.  (What did Intel say?  64 cores/chip in 10 years?)

Perhaps another syntax to denote this will show up.  (Each 
function or subroutine call, perhaps?  But that doesn't imply 
parallelism.)

Sorry, just a reaction.