extend foreach to work on non-arrays

[IntegratedDimensions]

On Friday, 25 May 2018 at 04:31:54 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> On Friday, 25 May 2018 at 03:24:32 UTC, IntegratedDimensions 
> wrote:
>> Show me where I asked you to do any work for me.
>
> The subject of your post is in the imperative. It's a command.
>

You are an imbecile, which I will attempt to prove: The subject 
describes the context of the post. It is not a command and no 
where says for everyone to drop what they are doing on work on 
it. That is what you want to read in to it. You are an evil 
person and want to spread your vitriol and hate by trying to read 
in the most negative things you can.




> People who just have an idea that they want to discuss but 
> aren't actively proposing as a change tend to communicate that 
> explicitly. They say something like "what do you think about 
> this idea?" or "would anyone find this useful?" or "soliciting 
> feedback".
>

It doesn't matter. People that want to force other people to do 
things usually use guns. If we restrict our selves to forum posts 
someone will say something like:

"YOU BETTER IMPLEMENT THIS OR ELSE!"

or

"You guys have to implement this now!"

The fact is, you chose to be a douchebag because you are a 
douchebag. No where in my post did I have any animosity. Why? 
Because I didn't put in any. I had no animosity... just because 
you can misinterpret it and find it means that is something you 
projected on to it.

Even if I wrote "GO FUCK YOURSELF!", If I put no animosity in it 
then there is none and it means nothing what I wrote why? Because 
that could be also said in a joking way as we know some people 
say it that way. The fact is, I said nothing even close to being 
negative and the fact is you jumped to the conclusion that it was.

In fact, what you did was get pissed because I rejected your 
comment as being useful and then that made you negative so you 
decided to be a douchebag. That is your problem, not mine.  You 
seem to have a need for everyone to accept everything you say as 
the absolute truth. God complex?




> At any rate, if you're just looking for whether anyone else 
> thinks it would be useful, the answer seems to be no.

Um, another condescending attack? First, How do you know what 
others thing? Second, someone found it useful enough to create a 
simple piece of that emulates the behavior. If they thought it 
was absolutely useless as you are trying to imply they would 
never bothered. Again, it is you projecting.

You have a problem, you like to be a douchebag.

>> You are an imbecile. Just trying to stir up trouble because 
>> you obviously don't know how to read. You didn't like my 
>> response and so you are being a dick... simple as that. I'm 
>> sure you will get your supporters... some dicks like to other 
>> dicks.
>
> I've first-hand experience with moderation on this forum: 
> nothing public, at most a private email from Walter or Andrei.

What are you saying? You have rubbed dicks with them? There are a 
lot of douchebag moderators, in fact, most. Similar to cops where 
they get a little authority and they think they are a god. So, I 
fail to see exactly what you are saying here.

> This does a terrible job of setting expectations of community 
> behavior. It makes it look like there is no moderation at all. 
> I have no idea whether the moderation I experienced was unique 
> or standard -- do most people not even get a warning? If 
> someone is rude to me, are they tolerated while I am rebuked?

You know what sets terrible expectations? When someone decides to 
read a post, reply trying to be helpful, when they are told their 
help wasn't on track they get pissed off then write posts that 
are condescending in attitude that is totally irrelevant to the 
original discussion and pretends to take the high ground.

If you notice I didn't attack anyone but you and that occurred 
after you attacked me. You, with your inflated ego expected me to 
roll over.

1. This is my thread, I shouldn't have to defend myself against 
any douchbag wants to but in and cause trouble.

2.



> I hope that policy changes.
>
>>> This is not an impossibly huge request, but it isn't trivial 
>>> by any means. There are two socially acceptable ways to get 
>>> people to implement something you want: convince them it's 
>>> worthwhile, or pay them.
>>
>> Um, no, it is trivial.
>
> The relevant code is here:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/aa8fc584b92e736290f359596ec9e0aae857ae2c/src/dmd/statementsem.d#L1069
>
> If, looking at it, you still think it's trivial, then you must 
> be considerably better at this than me. And have a much firmer 
> idea in your head of how this feature would work than you've 
> told us.

1. The code isn't terrible, but I have never messed with the D 
source so it is not a test of my skills. It is a test of someone 
that actually deals in the idiom that is used along with the 
style and methods so that they can create proper features rather 
than for me to hack it together. The only people that can answer 
if this feature would be difficult to implement are those people.

2. The feature itself is a rewrite rule. That in and of itself 
dictates that any implement is simple. If it is not simple then 
the compiler itself has a sever complexity issue that is a bigger 
problem.

3. I could probably spend a few hours implementing the feature. 
What good would it do? As you said "No one else finds it useful". 
To get it in the master branch would require a DIP and other shit 
that I'm not interested in doing. It seems that people like you 
wouldn't appreciate the effort anyways so why should I bother.

You seem to be the type of person that likes to beat their own 
chest and bully people around when they don't kowtow to your 
expectations. That is the real problem here and that is why you 
are a douchebag. Respect is earned and so far you are in the red.

You should take a few lessons from aliak on how to respond. His 
post was extremely helpful in providing a way to accomplish what 
I wanted in almost all respects. Yes, it is a library solution, 
but almost all things are. I didn't come in here thinking people 
were going to jump on immediate and modify the language, that is 
something you projected. What I came here to do was find a 
pattern that would be nearly as effected and thanks to aliak I 
got that, not thanks to you. Now, if anyone finds the feature 
useful and wants to implement it in the language and go through 
all the trouble then that is their business, not mine. What I did 
not come in here to do was deal with a douchebag. If you don't 
like me calling you one then simply stop being one. Assuming the 
worse is always going to cause problems but they are caused by 
you. Maybe next time you take a post a certain way you don't like 
you might think twice and question yourself, something I'm sure 
you rarely, if ever, do.